grandaddy of dagors

[robert_4927]

A 30" Dagor just went up for auction on the famous auction site. I have never seen one of these . I thought they were just a myth. Now talk about coverage...Wow!

[Walt Calahan]

So you don't have to do a search:

http://cgi.ebay.com/HUGE-30-inch-Goerz-Dagor-Massive-coverage_W0QQitemZ7572938791QQcategoryZ30076QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Terence McDonagh]

I love the lens board that appears to be more of a lens plank than a lens board.

Alas, I would have LOVED to have seen Dagor77's ad for this had it been his. "There I was, deep in the primordial forest when I came upon a team of sherpas carrying the lens in a ceremonial sedan chair and a contingent of gurkhas defending it . . . "

[medform-norm]

Terence,
are you his ghostwriter, by any chance? :)
I see you do the job as well as Dagor77 himself would have done. Please continue. I wanna know what happens with the ghurkas.

[tim atherton]

"I love the lens board that appears to be more of a lens plank than a lens board. "

that's great - it looks like it was once mounted in the side of a Man O' War

[John_4185]

What is to keep us from grinding our own lenses to copy the Dagor in question? ..besides, possibly, knowing the lens material forumula.

(Hey, it's a stupid question but I'm stupid!)

[robert_4927]

I'm curious to see what it sells for. It will probably require a second mortgage.

[John Z.]

I bought a large huge and heavy Zeiss 750mm lens once, mounted in a shutter--I think it weighed in at about 10 pounds total. The problem with large heavy lenses like this is that you never use them. I would always leave the lens behind, because it made my gear seem so much more heavy, and eventually realized that a lens that you don't use has no value. I ended up selling it for something more compact.

[Ole Tjugen]

jj,
The lens formula for the Dagor is well known. And the materials.

What's stopping us is the sheer immensity of the task: A Dagor consists of two groups, each containing three lens elements.

Each of those three elements must be ground and polished on both sides to very narrow tolerances, and some of the surfaces can't be done efficiently on machines (they must be made "one to a block").

Then one element must be centered and adjusted to another before cementing. Then the third element gets put in place (even more carefully), and only then can you grind the eges to the final size.

And next you'll have to match a front group to a rear group, adjust the centering and spacing, and mount them in a barrel.

This may seem complicated, but it's really a lot more difficult than it seems!

[Richard Ide]

This thread made me weigh my 1200mm Apo Tessar. At 21 lbs I won't be taking it out into the field very often. Apart from that it made a great enlarging lens.

Richard

[Steve Hamley]

jj,

If you want a big Dagor, just get the Schneider 550mm Fine Art. Two cemented triplets. And very likely you could make the purchase price easier than making the lens!

Steve

[William Mortensen]

General question about "doppel anastigmat" dagors:

We all know that the name "Dagor" derives from "Double Anastigmat, GOeRz," but there are other double anastigmat designs from Goerz that are different from a Dagor. (Example: the Goerz Hypergon is a double anastigmat, but no one would call it a Dagor...)

Are all lenses marked as Goerz double/dopple anastigmats actually Dagors?

[Craig Wactor]

I could just imagine mounting that sucker on an old airstream trailer, with a giant piece of ilfochrome taped to the back wall, a mobile version of the polaroid 40x80 camera...

it would be cool to know the history behind that lens!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

According to a 1913 catalogue, the list price for the 30" Dagor was $539. According to one website (http://eh.net/hmit/compare/) the contemporary value would be $10,233 based on the Consumer Price Index. Ouch. Might as well buy one of those "Fine Art" Schnieders.

[Terence McDonagh]

. . . steeling myself for the optical battle ahead I fortified myself with haggis and three fingers of 16-year old glenfiddich. I sent a coconut-clad Artara out onto a perpendicular path and hunkered down behind a large fern that looked out of the paleolithic period, noting the fine contrasting light cast in it's shadow. Waiting for the leftenant of gurkhas to notice Artara I firmly grasped my battered Graflex RB, and when I sensed his mesmerisation to be complete, launched the RB at his skull, knocking him unconcious. Before the leaderless Gurkhas could gather their wits I bolted for the sedan chair, diving over the top of it and grabbing the weighty Dagor in mid-arc, catching the Sherpa team almost unawares. While Artara beat a hasty retreat to our sylvan lair I sprinted uphill, dodging .303 Lee-Enfield rounds the whole way. Alas, upon reaching the hilltop I was confronted by a kukri-wielding Sergeant of Gurkhas. With nothing but the Dagor to shield myself with I quickly countered his first blow with the lens, causing the dent to the filter ring at 6 o'clock and the matching nick on the flange ring seen in the pictures. Quickly parrying with a Weston Master I had forgotten to be hanging around my neck, I managed to subdue the good sergeant and thus affect my escape with the slightly marked lens and my battered pride . . .

[Dan Fromm]

Mark, abso-bloodlylutely not! A while ago I was sold a 130/6.8 Goerz Doppel Anastigmat by a character who insisted it was a dagor. It was a nameless dialyte and much too flary to use. Goerz made many dialyte type doppel anastigmats, some even named, and so did other makers.

[John_4185]

From the auction The glass has what you would call a natural bloom on it. Effectively this is just as good as a lens coating, all be it (sic) a natural oxidation

Natural oxidation of glass! And it is as good as lens coating? Can either be true?

[Arne Croell]

The natural bloom can act similar to a coating - actually the first work on coating was based on artificially producing this bloom by etching. It was never possible to do that reproducibly, though. However, I do not think it is oxidation, although people often call it that, as optical glass is already a mixture of oxides. The thin layer of bloom is caused by selectively leaching certain components out of the glass. Contact with water (even as a thin layer of condensed vapor) is enough to do that. The remaining layer is depleted in certain metal oxides reducing its refractive index and thus acts as a coating layer if the thickness is just right.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

And it is as good as lens coating?

No, definitely not. Such "natural bloom" does not cover the entire lens surface and is not uniform in thickness. Although it was the basis for early experiments that led to the first effective anti-reflective coating processes, it by no means is "as good as a lens coating". Such claims are pure salesmanship, nothing more.

Kerry

[Ernest Purdum]

The 30" wasn't the biggest. A 35" was also listed. It had a free aperture of 5", and was rated to cover 22" X 25" at f7.7, and 34" X 44" at f62. The 1904 price was $1070.

[John_4185]

I'm gonna jack-up this auction early. Why not? If I win, I will send the lens to Gali. But I ain't gonna win. Watch the auction/action.
--
Life is short

[John_4185]

Ah, fer gosh's sake, the reserve is over $2000.

I guess I have a lot to learn of lens values. I suspect some kinda poseur will buy it.

[Leonard Robertson]

Mark - I believe "double/doppels" labeled Series III are the six-element formula we know as Dagors. I have a 10 3/4" Double Anastigmat Type B Series 1c that is the four-element forerunner of the Celor and Artar.

Craig - Last year my wife inherited a 1970 Airstream, either a 17' or 19'. You certainly have me thinking of a new use for it. I'm afraid the 30" Dagor will sell for near what the Airstream is worth though, and I don't think my wife will let me sell the one to buy the other. I doubt my 19" Dagor has enough coverage for even a small Airstream.

[medform-norm]

Terence,
thanks. Now I know what happened to the Ghurkas I can have a quiet weekend. Your description damn well makes this lens worth over $2000! You have a brilliant future lying ahead of you. Norm

[wfwhitaker]

Readers may find this thread (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/501625.html) interesting....

[sanking]

OK, I have always loved Dagors and find it incredible that a lens design from the 1890s is still completive in some focal lengths and applications with more modern optics. And 30” Dagors are not often seen for sale, so in a world where I could own everything I wanted, well, why not a 30” Dagor? However, from a purely practical point of view I don’t see this as a lens for which I would find much use, even in a format as large as 20X24,” which is the largest format in common use. And the reason is that there are less expensive alternatives in that focal length, coated and in shutter, that would give better results. For example, a 30” Goerz Red Dot Artar, in a modern Copal #3, will sell for much less than the reserve price of $2k for the 30” Dagor in barrel, and easily covers 20X24” with movements. And with much better sharpness and contrast, and in a much smaller package. Of course, you get a slightly brighter ground glass with the f/7.7 maximum aperture of the Dagor versus the f/11 of the Red Dot, but considering the trade-off I believe the RD Artar is a much better buy.

This is not in any way meant to be critical of the Dagor design. But if your interest is use, as opposed to collecting, there are in my view better alternatives.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Sandy,

I suppose the bidding frenzy is being fueled more by collectibility than usability in this case, but who knows. As you state, a 30" Red Dot Artar has all the coverage needed for anything up to 20x24, as does a 750mm APO Germinar and likely a 760mm APO Nikkor. Basically, anything this long has all the coverage needed for anything actually involving film. Perhaps the eager bidders are planning to shoot paper negatives or coat their own mammoth glass plates. There just aren't that many people shooting 20x24, and fewer still (if any) currently shooting anything larger. The other lenses in this focal length will all be considerably newer, coated and have all the sharpness you would ever need for such huge formats.

Still, it only takes two (or more) people who REALLY want an item to drive the price up on eBay. That's the beauty of an auction. You get EXACTLY what the market will bear, which is good for the seller. But, it is also good for the buyer. I don't recall the last time I saw a 30" Dagor for sale at any price. So, eBay helps get really obscure (I won't use RARE!!! as it's meaning has been diluted by sellers who seem to think there just aren't enough 210mm Symmars in this world) in the hands of eager and willing buyers. Who knows, the eventual buyer might actually use this relic from the days of when dinosaurs roamed the earth to create some wonderful and unique images. 24x30 contact prints, anyone?

Kerry

[John_4185]

Sandy, Kerry:

Are you guys optical-benchracing? How do you know what the outcome really looks like? Obviously, modern lenses will be more corrected, but is that what everyone wants?

[Dan Fromm]

John, if the object is to make contact prints, who cares? Why pay more for a lens that's not going to make a negative that will make a better contact print?

Yes, I know, I'm an ignorant barbarian who doesn't appreciate the coarse points, let alone the fine ones.

Cheers,

[sanking]

"Sandy, Kerry:

Are you guys optical-benchracing? How do you know what the outcome really looks like? Obviously, modern lenses will be more corrected, but is that what everyone wants?"

jj,

OK, I have a fairly good idea of what the outcome really looks like because I have owned and used Dagors in the past in focal lengths ranging from 6" up to 24".

My point was simply that for practical use in formats up to 20X24" there are alternatives in the 30" focal length that provide more than enough coverage and are much less expensive.

[William Mortensen]

Yes, there are better performers at a better price, but there is ultimately one consideration that will fully justify the 30" Dagor's price: "I really, really, really, really, really, really want it..."

[sanking]

"Still, it only takes two (or more) people who REALLY want an item to drive the price up on eBay. That's the beauty of an auction. You get EXACTLY what the market will bear, which is good for the seller. But, it is also good for the buyer. I don't recall the last time I saw a 30" Dagor for sale at any price."

Kerry,

No problem at all with what you say. In recent years I have sold Dagors in 19" and 24" focal lengths and very much appreciate the fact that these lenses have value for both users and collectors. Both were great lenses and part of me hated to let them go. However, as a user I found that some of the modern glass of same focal length gives better results. Better results for me mean greater resolution and contrast over the main coverage area.

Regardless, anyone fortunate enough to own a 30" Dagor should treasure it.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Sandy, Kerry:

Are you guys optical-benchracing? How do you know what the outcome really looks like? Obviously, modern lenses will be more corrected, but is that what everyone wants?

jj,

Ya caught me there. I have never actually used a 30" Dagor. So, I violated one of my personal rules to not make qualative statements on something I have not tried myself. I have, however, used Dagors in 6", 9½", 12", 16½" and 19" on formats from 4x5 - 11x14. The Dagors I've used range from nearly 100 years old through a Gold Dot Dagor from the late 1960s. My comments were made based on my experience with these shorter Dagors.

I'm certianly not bad mouthing the Dagor. I was just questioning the high selling price and bang/buck of this particular lens in question. One of the main strengths of the Dagor is it's versatility. At f22, it is a "normal" lens with about 65 degree coverage. Stop it down to f45 and it becomes a wide angle (covering about 87 degrees, depending on age and focal length). So, it's almost like having two lenses in one. The wide coverage stopped down is one reason why Dagors, especially those in the 12", 14" and 16½" focal lengths, are so popular with ULF shooters. In the 30" focal length, his advantage is largely irrelevant - and that was my point. So, you may be paying a lot more for coverage you don't need/can't use. Even if you're shooting 20x24, you only need a lens capable of producing a 785mm image circle. So, why pay 3 - 5x (or more, depending on how high the auction goes) as much for a lens with a 1400mm+ image circle if you don't need the coverage?

Yes, the Dagors do produce images that have a "unique" look. This is mostly due to uncorrected sperical aberrations at large apertures. If this is the look you are after, there are other, much less expensive, lenses capable of producing a similar look.

Again, I am not discouraging anyone from using/buying Dagors. I was just questioning the cost/benefit of this particular lens. On the other hand, not all purchases are based on rational decisions. Sometimes we buy things simply because owning them makes us happy. Sometimes we buy rare items simply as an investment. Whatever the reason for the bidding frenzy on this lens, it's not really any of my business. I just wanted the disappointed bidders who don't win to know that there are other, less expensive, more common 30" lenses out there that might meet their needs. Not that I consider a 30" Red Dot Artar or APO Germinar a consolation prize, but we can't all afford a 30" Dagor. There just aren't enough to go around - and perhaps that alone is justification for the high price this lens is going to fetch.

Kerry

[robert_4927]

So how high are you going to go Kerry? 3800.00-4000.00 ? .......lol... I bet Jim G. is breaking out in sweats with only 5 hours to go......lol...This is fun to watch but I doubt if a sour grapes speech is going to console those Dagor Collectors out there that don't win. Personally I'm more than happy with my 30" red dot artar. Then again it's not a Dagor. Red Dots are much easier to find.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

So how high are you going to go Kerry? 3800.00-4000.00

I have no intension of bidding. Although it's an interesting lens from a historical/collectable standpoint, I have no application that requires something this long with this much coverage. I currently have a 600mm Fujinon C that is long enough and has more than enough coverage for anything I plan to do - and it was a LOT cheaper. It's basically an Artar optimized for infinity, multicoated and placed in a modern Copal shutter. Good enough for me.

I will be watching the auction just to see how much this puppy fetches.

Kerry

[robert_4927]

Alright, alright, who was the lucky winner?

[William Mortensen]

Someone from Hong Kong bought it. Maybe the Chinese are planning on coming out with a line of 30" Dagor copies...