PDA

View Full Version : Date my Dagor?



Chester McCheeserton
14-Mar-2019, 07:58
Recently picked up a very clean 9 1/2 Dagor F6.8

It's labeled C.P. GOERZ AM. OPT. CO.
serial # 809243

it does not have a gold dot, but the back of the mounting flange is gold or brass covered. It's not mounted in a shutter. The F-stops seem smooth but don't have click stops.

Anyone know what date this would be from? I've done a brief comb thru of links and couldn't see something that pointed to this high of a serial number.

The person I got it from said they they had used as an enlarging lens for 5x7 B&W printing in the 80s. Any idea how this would compare to a modern 240 as an enlarging lens?

I'm more tempted to have S.K Grimes mount it in a shutter and use it on my 5x7. I think someone said it was less sharp then a modern Fuji 240 when movements are used? It's also pretty heavy for such a small lens...

Luis-F-S
14-Mar-2019, 08:03
Recently picked up a very clean 9 1/2 Dagor F6.8

It's labeled C.P. GOERZ AM. OPT. CO.
serial # 809243
I'm more tempted to have S.K Grimes mount it in a shutter and use it on my 5x7. I think someone said it was less sharp then a modern Fuji 240 when movements are used? It's also pretty heavy for such a small lens...

+1, what I would do in a Copal 1. Did it on mine 25 years ago.

angusparker
14-Mar-2019, 08:04
Your title threw me for a second. Was wondering if I should suggest your inquiry was better placed on Match.com.

Chester McCheeserton
14-Mar-2019, 09:11
+1, what I would do in a Copal 1. Did it on mine 25 years ago.

Looks $$$ tho. at least 300 for the install plus the shutter....which looks like at least 200 gambling on a used lens from ebay to just pull the shutter out...

You think yours is as sharp as a modern fuji?

Mark Sampson
14-Mar-2019, 09:25
Dagors have been 'cult' lenses since long before I began shooting LF in 1981. There are many threads here about their image qualities... a controversial subject. I have not used one enough to have an opinion about that. But the design was in production from the 1890s until at least 1982, by many manufacturers, which suggests a quality design. A look at the front page of this site suggests that Goerz lens #791500 dates from 1955, so yours may be from the late '50s. I'd try the lens out as-is; it may very well be worth putting into a shutter.

Chester McCheeserton
14-Mar-2019, 09:38
Thanks Mark. I saw that about the 791# being from 55, just wasn't sure what that meant about my 809#.

You're probably right, it's just going to be expensive to do properly, and not sure it's worth it versus just selling this and getting a modern fujinon 240 A or something similar.

Luis-F-S
14-Mar-2019, 10:07
Don’t have any Fujis-not interested!

David Lindquist
14-Mar-2019, 10:20
I wish we had more complete serial number information for C.P. Goerz A.O.C./ Goerz Optical Co. Recently on ebay there was a collection of G.O.C. ephemera which included a packing list for a lens ordered by a man in Michigan. The packing list clearly shows the invoice date of May 31, 1968. The lens is a "6" Goerz Dagor lens in MX/O Syn Shutter" and the lens serial number is 830782.

In October 1969 I bought a new 6" Dagor (Gold Dot), serial number 823566, so evidently these did not get sold in order of production. In the past I've probably cited this on various forums as a more precise data point regarding production date than it now appears to be. BTW not relying on a nearly 50 year old memory here. Made a written record of the purchase at the time and still have it.

David

Louis Pacilla
14-Mar-2019, 10:45
Not sure if this was mentioned but why not have an adapter made for front mounting your 8 1/2" Dagor to a Copal 3 or a Alphax #4? this way you do not lose much if any image circle (larger shutter then if in the traditional mount probably being a Copal 1 or Alphax #3. The cost will be at a minimum as there is no need to make aperture scale for shutter or the expense of having your dagor mounted w/ a in between shutter.

Chester McCheeserton
14-Mar-2019, 10:54
I wish we had more complete serial number information for C.P. Goerz A.O.C./ Goerz Optical Co....In October 1969 I bought a new 6" Dagor (Gold Dot), serial number 823566..

David

Thanks David, those dates and that info is good to know

Chester McCheeserton
14-Mar-2019, 10:59
Not sure if this was mentioned but why not have an adapter made for front mounting your 8 1/2" Dagor to a Copal 3 or a Alphax #4? this way you do not lose much if any image circle (larger shutter then if in the traditional mount probably being a Copal 1 or Alphax #3. The cost will be at a minimum as there is no need to make aperture scale for shutter or the expense of having your dagor mounted w/ a in between shutter.

Thanks for the suggestion Louis, I had not considered that and am not at all knowledgeable about the exact details involved in plunking one of these paperweights in a shutter. I guess I'm a minimalist when it comes to volume and weight, I wish the lens could somehow be squeezed in a copal 0! But I realize I probably can't have my cake and eat it too...

Dan Fromm
14-Mar-2019, 12:36
Chester, a #0 is impossible, a #1 is unlikely, probably impossible. FWIW, Boyer's equivalent, the 240/6.8 Beryl went in a #3. Beryls are remarkably similar to Dagors.

As has already been suggested, hanging it in front of an Alphax #3 (front threads 1.795" x 40 tpi, maximum opening 34.9 mm) or an Ilex #3 (1.775" x 50 tpi, 1.375") is probably the most economical way to go. FWIW, I hang my 250/6.8 Beryl in front of a #1. The adapter is a cup-shaped threaded bushing, SKGrimes has made a few of them for me.

Michael Roberts
14-Mar-2019, 15:24
Is a Packard shutter an option for you—given the speeds you normally shoot?

Mark Sawyer
14-Mar-2019, 16:18
The dates from the LF Home Page, https://www.largeformatphotography.info/classic-experts.html

Goerz Amer. Optical Co. Serial #'s from Eddie Bolsetzian (former Goerz Tech.)

Lens #

70001-140935 1902-1903
150000-190170 1903-1905
200941-224267 1906-1908
223775-226630 1908-1909
310001-315734 1911-1914
315735-320000 1914-1918
751240-756909 1927-1937
755300 1934
756910-765730 1937-1945
765730-771199 1945-1948
771200-780169 1948-1954
791500 ~1955

Dan Fromm
14-Mar-2019, 16:19
I had that same model lens once. It came mounted in an Ilex 3 shutter. There is currently one listed on eBay in a Copal 1. It still has an aperture of f/6.8.

Right you are, I found it. So the front cell has to magnify the diaphragm's image by around 20%.

MAubrey
14-Mar-2019, 16:41
Dagors have been 'cult' lenses since long before I began shooting LF in 1981. There are many threads here about their image qualities... a controversial subject. I have not used one enough to have an opinion about that. But the design was in production from the 1890s until at least 1982, by many manufacturers, which suggests a quality design. A look at the front page of this site suggests that Goerz lens #791500 dates from 1955, so yours may be from the late '50s. I'd try the lens out as-is; it may very well be worth putting into a shutter.

Even more recent than 82'!

The Schneider 550mm XXL Fine Art lens is a Dagor design.

Bernice Loui
14-Mar-2019, 16:58
This IS a surprise, they fitted a 9-1/2" Dagor into a Copal# 1 shutter.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/C-P-Goerz-AM-Opt-Co-Dagor-9-1-2-f6-8-Lens-w-Copal-1-Shutter/173596253603?hash=item286b249da3:g:0qIAAOSwq~JbloFf

All of the later 9-1/2" Dagors I've been around are in Ilex# 3.

From f16 to f45, covers 8x10. Focus shift possible, be aware of this. This design has withstood the test of time for many good reasons. Still have three of them in barrel used with Sinar Shutter. 8-1/2", 10-3/4", 12". All three are keepers as with the Kodak Ektars, APO Artar, and ...


Bernice



I had that same model lens once. It came mounted in an Ilex 3 shutter. There is currently one listed on eBay in a Copal 1. It still has an aperture of f/6.8.

Chester McCheeserton
14-Mar-2019, 20:45
Is a Packard shutter an option for you—given the speeds you normally shoot?

technically yeah, I don't use strobes or anything but I like having options, sometimes it's bright out here in California and I like to be able to stop action.

neil poulsen
15-Mar-2019, 04:33
The main thing is that it's factory coated. Use and enjoy. Although production quality could vary, one of my sharpest and neatest images was made with a 7" Dagor of similar vintage. (Mine was mounted in a Rapax shutter, which Dagor had purchased during the war. They cound't get Compurs.)

Bear in mind, that Dagors can be subject to a bit of focus shift. So, double-check the focus if you can with the lens stopped down.

Chester McCheeserton
15-Mar-2019, 11:32
. Focus shift possible, be aware of this.

Bernice

Bernice just curious, I've read of this too - did you experience this for yourself with this specific lens or also just read of others mentioning it?

Mark Sawyer
15-Mar-2019, 12:50
From my experience, I've found a little focus shift in very early Dagors, which also tended to be a bit unsharp in the very corners. By the time coatings came in (WWII and after), the problems were gone. Like most lenses produced for many decades, they improved over time.

Chester McCheeserton
15-Mar-2019, 12:55
From my experience, I've found a little focus shift in very early Dagors, which also tended to be a bit unsharp in the very corners. By the time coatings came in (WWII and after), the problems were gone. Like most lenses produced for many decades, they improved over time.

Thanks Mark

Ken Lee
15-Mar-2019, 16:37
"I'm more tempted to have S.K Grimes mount it in a shutter and use it on my 5x7."

If the lens is old and mounted in-barrel, the iris probably has a large number of rounded blades: very desirable. However, if someone mounts it into a modern shutter, the new iris may have a small number of flat blades, which can be less desirable depending on what and how you shoot.

You might find this short article helpful: Vintage Lenses: ROUND Apertures (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Vintage).

Many of the newest lenses designed for high-end digital cameras are (finally) boasting large numbers of rounded blades because people appreciate smooth blur rendition at all apertures. See 12 Must-See New Lenses for 2018 (https://www.adorama.com/alc/12-must-see-new-lenses-for-2018) on the Adorama web site:


"Optical designers have also placed a high priority on achieving beautiful bokeh, creating lenses that deliver smooth, natural transitions from sharp to soft areas of the image. And most of the latest lenses employ a greater number of rounded aperture blades to enhance the visual quality of out-of-focus image areas."

I had SK Grimes front-mount (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/lenses/index.php#Alphax) my Goerz Artar in order to retain the original aperture. It works nicely on my 5x7 camera. You can see a few photos here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/artar/). The third image illustrates the smooth blur rendition of that lens with its original round iris.

Front-mounting might not be appropriate for a Dagor with its larger coverage, but with an older shutter you may be able to keep the original aperture or get something similar.

Chester McCheeserton
15-Mar-2019, 18:48
[COLOR="#0000FF"]

If the lens is old and mounted in-barrel, the iris probably has a large number of rounded blades: very desirable. However, if someone mounts it into a modern shutter, the new iris may have a small number of flat blades, which can be less desirable depending on what and how you shoot.



Appreciate all that Ken, Thanks. I hadn't considered that the old aperture might be better. Most of my stuff I try to shoot stopped down so that as much as possible is in focus. This lens does have a fairly rounded blades, I'll check out that article and consider front mounting...

Bernice Loui
15-Mar-2019, 20:06
Possible focus shift depends on the vintage or specific Dagor as Goerz continued to evolve and improve the Dagor over it's production life.

The earliest of the three Dagors here has a SN of 78xxxxx with a tiny amount of focus shift, the later ones SN 80xxxxx + have very little if any focus shift.

All three remain in their original lens barrels and are used with a Sinar shutter as with the majority of the other lenses here. This is due to these older lenses having Fab round iris that are not found in Copal and other moderns LF lens shutters. If the taking aperture is f22 and smaller with the goal of everything in the image appearing as "sharp" the 5-8 blade modern shutter is not likely going to make much if any difference at all. Once the taking aperture is larger than say f16 to full lens aperture, the aperture shape can and often does affect out of focus rendition. If should also be understood only a small plane of the image area will be in true focus, what appears to be in focus is appearance of being in focus and not at the lens focused plane. This is why stopping down more than needed decimates actual lens "sharpness" in many ways. On a view camera, there is some control over this due to the ability to apply camera movement which shifts and curves the plane of focus. This problem of aperture and actual plane of focus is aggravated as the format size goes up.

Speculation, due to the LF orthodoxy of everything in the image in focus this has promoted the normalization of modern LF lenses being optimized at f16-f22 to serve a market orthodoxy of everything in the image to be "sharp". Non-round modern shutter iris is a possible product of this. In generations before that was not always true which could be why older lenses which did good about two f-stops down had round iris. That generation understood the meaning and value of out of focus rendition and more.


Bernice

Chester McCheeserton
15-Mar-2019, 23:13
Thanks, sounds like this one shouldn't have too much focus shift then. Will have to test it...Yeah I like things to appear in focus generally, and the way modern large format lenses render out of focus areas has never caused me to reject a picture on that basis along so far...need to look at Ken's examples more closely to see the difference I guess.

My experience so far has been that diffraction is what people write about on forums and lens reviews and is never something that's been visible to me that causes me to not want to enlarge something.

But certainly there's been plenty of great pictures made recently that have large areas out of focus. Wolfgang Tillmans (even though he's using small format digital) could be viewed as 'understanding the meaning and value of out of focus rendition'...

Mark Sawyer
16-Mar-2019, 00:52
It all depends on your aesthetic. If you're an f/64 disciple, or similarly believe in everything in focus, it's about as important as the trunk space in a Ferrari. You don't use it for that.

Bernice Loui
16-Mar-2019, 09:25
If everything is focus is the goal and the rendition of modern Plasmats and similar works, there would be reduced reasons to add this Dagor to the working lens set. Do some real world testing to see if this Dagor works for you.

Good examples of how out of focus rendition and using out of focus areas in images can be found in cinema works of producers like Stanley Kubrick, Orson Wells and numerous other accomplished film makers. This is the group of image makers that understand what out of focus rendition means and how best to use it in the images they produce. In many ways, those who have been exposed to film cinema has been exposed and subjected to the emotional effects of out of focus rendition in images but might not be aware of their visual impact.

Back in the 1980's the Group f64 orthodoxy was near religion and the way LF had to be. About a decade after that during the 1990's it became apparent the Group f64 everything "Sharp_in focus" was too limiting and should NOT be the orthodoxy for sheet film images. That was when interest into Soft Focus lenses and out of focus rendition became more important than the Group f64 everything sharp orthodoxy. This was when all the modern plasmas in the working lens set found new homes, then got replaced with a set of Kodak Ektars, Schneider Xenars, Dagor and Artars.

As for diffraction, it is very real and has an effect on images. How visible is diffraction in a given print, it varies a LOT with a host of factors involved. Knowing diffraction will and does affect image quality has resulted in using a view camera that is precise and will hold accurate alignment between front to rear standards with any camera movement needed. Using the largest possible taking aperture for the given demands of the noun and environment being imaged. This does not appear to be the current populous idea of what LF images is about.


Bernice







I like things to appear in focus generally, and the way modern large format lenses render out of focus areas has never caused me to reject a picture on that basis along so far...

My experience so far has been that diffraction is what people write about on forums and lens reviews and is never something that's been visible to me that causes me to not want to enlarge something.

Chester McCheeserton
16-Mar-2019, 10:54
Good examples of how out of focus rendition and using out of focus areas in images can be found in cinema works of producers like Stanley Kubrick, Orson Wells and numerous other accomplished film makers. This is the group of image makers that understand what out of focus rendition means and how best to use it in the images they produce. In many ways, those who have been exposed to film cinema has been exposed and subjected to the emotional effects of out of focus rendition in images but might not be aware of their visual impact.
Bernice

I saw 'Ash is Purest White' directed by Jia Zhangke at the theater yesterday, he and his DP Eric Gautier are certainly aware of the potential of both aesthetics, all over sharp focus and wide open selective focus. This stuff transcends time and generations.

Bernice Loui
16-Mar-2019, 11:50
Not a question of which is "better" they are BOTH visual tools as a means of creative expression.

Relative to the Dagor, only way to know if this lens fits your needs, do LOTS of testing. Comments, opinions by others is just that comments and opinions.



Bernice




I saw 'Ash is Purest White' directed by Jia Zhangke at the theater yesterday, he and his DP Eric Gautier are certainly aware of the potential of both aesthetics, all over sharp focus and wide open selective focus. This stuff transcends time and generations.

Mark Sawyer
16-Mar-2019, 11:52
As for diffraction, it is very real and has an effect on images. How visible is diffraction in a given print, it varies a LOT with a host of factors involved. Knowing diffraction will and does affect image quality has resulted in using a view camera that is precise and will hold accurate alignment between front to rear standards with any camera movement needed. Using the largest possible taking aperture for the given demands of the noun and environment being imaged. This does not appear to be the current populous idea of what LF images is about.

Current aesthetics in wet plate and portraiture, and the demand for faster lenses like the Aero-Ektar indicate a healthy interest in working within a shallow depth of field for many of us.

With all the nano-precision of concern over achieving absolute maximum performance from our lenses, it's worth remembering Weston shot his peppers and seashells with a common uncoated non-macro 210mm Zeiss Tessar, with a pinhole aperture inserted into the lens that violated diffraction limits with a cymbal-crash and fanfare of trumpets. Never have I heard anyone comment on him needing a better lens or technique. And Weston was one of the key definers of that super-sharp "the Group f64 orthodoxy".

Louis Pacilla
16-Mar-2019, 12:05
Current aesthetics in wet plate and portraiture, and the demand for faster lenses like the Aero-Ektar indicate a healthy interest in working within a shallow depth of field for many of us.

With all the nano-precision of concern over achieving absolute maximum performance from our lenses, it's worth remembering Weston shot his peppers and seashells with a common uncoated non-macro 210mm Zeiss Tessar, with a pinhole aperture inserted into the lens that violated diffraction limits with a cymbal-crash and fanfare of trumpets. Never have I heard anyone comment on him needing a better lens or technique. And Weston was one of the key definers of that super-sharp "the Group f64 orthodoxy".

As always brother Mark, extremely well said.;)

Willie
16-Mar-2019, 15:46
You keep your Goerz Dagor away from my Anna Stigmat!

Bernice Loui
16-Mar-2019, 21:29
But, but, but, but Dagor is part of Anna Stigmat's family :o


;)
Bernice



You keep your Goerz Dagor away from my Anna Stigmat!

Mark Sawyer
16-Mar-2019, 22:39
But, but, but, but Dagor is part of Anna Stigmat's family :o

Dagor is twice the lens Anna is. In fact, a lot of people call her "double Anna Stigmat".

Personally, I've been seeing Tess.

Tess R.

:p

But you know, I've always liked triplets!

(Am I banned from the forum yet?)