PDA

View Full Version : Goerz Doppel Anastigmat Serie III No 7 360mm f6 COVERAGE or lens catalogue



maxi0909
13-Sep-2020, 11:30
I just wanna have some information about the Goerz Doppel Anastigmat Serie III No 7 360mm f6 , especially the image circle i.e. "Coverage"

Thanks a lot

mdarnton
13-Sep-2020, 12:31
http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1895goerzlp723.htm

Greg
13-Sep-2020, 12:34
On my 11x14 Chamonix I have and use a 14” f/7.7 GOERTZ DOUBLE-ANASTIGMAT Series III No. 7. Its coverage seems to exceed the movements of the camera, in that I've never run out of needed movements with it.

Dan Fromm
13-Sep-2020, 12:42
Maxi, see post #2 in this https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?160066-Just-bought-a-Wollensak-127mm-f-4-5-Raptar-Lens-w-Alphax-Synchromatic-Shutter discussion.

karl french
13-Sep-2020, 20:18
It's a f7.7 lens and should cover all the way to 12x20.

maxi0909
14-Sep-2020, 01:00
http://www.piercevaubel.com/cam/catalogs/1895goerzlp723.htm

MAybe it´s the first one of those lenses, but mine looks a little bit different... there is also doesn´t written f7.7 on the lens, just "Doppel Anastigmat Serie III No 7 360"

maxi0909
14-Sep-2020, 01:03
207776
207777
207778

This is my lens

karl french
14-Sep-2020, 08:34
It's a great lens. That is an early example. Likely with a different aperture scale. Dagors tend not to be super sharp wide open. You'll need to stop it down a bit for sharpness across the field. Wide open it's a nice portrait lens for 8x10. You can also use one half of the lens as a 24 or so inch lens.

maxi0909
14-Sep-2020, 14:54
It's a great lens. That is an early example. Likely with a different aperture scale. Dagors tend not to be super sharp wide open. You'll need to stop it down a bit for sharpness across the field. Wide open it's a nice portrait lens for 8x10. You can also use one half of the lens as a 24 or so inch lens.

Thanks for the tip :)
But do you know if it is really usable on 20x24 inch? This would be so great, because then I would have a wide angle.

maxi0909
14-Sep-2020, 15:14
On my 11x14 Chamonix I have and use a 14” f/7.7 GOERTZ DOUBLE-ANASTIGMAT Series III No. 7. Its coverage seems to exceed the movements of the camera, in that I've never run out of needed movements with it.

Maybe you can take a look at my pictures, to check if the lens looks like your one :)

Greg
14-Sep-2020, 16:04
Maybe you can take a look at my pictures, to check if the lens looks like your one :)

image of my lens

Greg

karl french
14-Sep-2020, 17:12
It's not going to cover 20x24. 19" (48cm) Dagor is what you want for that.

Tracy Storer
15-Sep-2020, 12:06
Nobody says the 14" Series III Dagor will cover 20"x24" because it won't. The linked catalog page suggests 18"x22" stopped all the way down which is 90 degrees, which is in fact, the limit of these lenses (90 degrees at f/64 or f/90).
A 16.5" Dagor (420mm) also f/7.7 will just cover 20"x24" stopped down and will likely render darkened corners. As Karl French tells you, a 19" Dagor is a better bet for a good usable wide angle on 20"x24".
I share this as a 20"x24" user who owns and uses many focal length Dagors, including 14"(won't cover 20x24), 16.5" (86.9 deg)and 19"(78.8 deg)(both do, read above).

Thanks for the tip :)
But do you know if it is really usable on 20x24 inch? This would be so great, because then I would have a wide angle.

Tracy Storer
15-Sep-2020, 14:30
I downloaded and zoomed in on the photo showing your aperture scale. It appears to be marked in "the Goerz System" rather than International stops(the F/stop scale we all know today).
You can consider your marked apertures to be:
6 = f/7.7 or f/8
12 = f/11
24 = f/16
48 = f/22
96 = f/32
192 = f/45
Being that it has a 5 digit serial number, and marked in "Goerz System" it's on the early side. I have a black painted one that looks very similar, but with 6 digit ser, and marked in "International Stops". It should perform very well, even compared to a much more modern lens, though being uncoated it'll be a little less contrasty.


207776
207777
207778

This is my lens

maxi0909
15-Sep-2020, 23:46
Nobody says the 14" Series III Dagor will cover 20"x24" because it won't. The linked catalog page suggests 18"x22" stopped all the way down which is 90 degrees, which is in fact, the limit of these lenses (90 degrees at f/64 or f/90).
A 16.5" Dagor (420mm) also f/7.7 will just cover 20"x24" stopped down and will likely render darkened corners. As Karl French tells you, a 19" Dagor is a better bet for a good usable wide angle on 20"x24".
I share this as a 20"x24" user who owns and uses many focal length Dagors, including 14"(won't cover 20x24), 16.5" (86.9 deg)and 19"(78.8 deg)(both do, read above).

Thanks for your great answer :)
Do you mean I could use the 19 inch on a 16x20 camera even wide open in landscape? or just portrait?

On the other hand I would be happy if you could give me a great tip for a good (and maybe not priceless) wide angle lens for 20x24 :D

maxi0909
15-Sep-2020, 23:48
I downloaded and zoomed in on the photo showing your aperture scale. It appears to be marked in "the Goerz System" rather than International stops(the F/stop scale we all know today).
You can consider your marked apertures to be:
6 = f/7.7 or f/8
12 = f/11
24 = f/16
48 = f/22
96 = f/32
192 = f/45
Being that it has a 5 digit serial number, and marked in "Goerz System" it's on the early side. I have a black painted one that looks very similar, but with 6 digit ser, and marked in "International Stops". It should perform very well, even compared to a much more modern lens, though being uncoated it'll be a little less contrasty.

Thank you, that clears everything up :)

Dan Fromm
16-Sep-2020, 06:50
On the other hand I would be happy if you could give me a great tip for a good (and maybe not priceless) wide angle lens for 20x24 :D

See post #4 above.

Lessee now, if you want a 90 degree lens that just covers 20x24 you'll need something around 400 mm. Your only chance is an ancient lens. Scarce, expensive. If you must shoot wide, consider moving down in format.

Tracy Storer
16-Sep-2020, 08:13
Take a good look at the old catalog page Dan Fromm shared a link to. It gives coverage wide open, at moderate stops, and all the way down. It's an early catalog, before some of the shorter Fls were opened up to f/6.8, but the data tracks.


Thanks for your great answer :)
Do you mean I could use the 19 inch on a 16x20 camera even wide open in landscape? or just portrait?

On the other hand I would be happy if you could give me a great tip for a good (and maybe not priceless) wide angle lens for 20x24 :D

maxi0909
16-Sep-2020, 08:19
Take a good look at the old catalog page Dan Fromm shared a link to. It gives coverage wide open, at moderate stops, and all the way down. It's an early catalog, before some of the shorter Fls were opened up to f/6.8, but the data tracks.

Sometimes people say that those Catalogues doesn´t tell the real world Coverage. They say that the lenses can go higher in coverage. That´s why I asked.

I opened a new Thread with a question about an other lens I owned, because the seller said it can go higher than the catalogue numbers. It´s a Voigtländer Euryscop No. 6 Series IV. He said I could use it for 16x20 inch portraits fully opened aperture.

Dan Fromm
16-Sep-2020, 09:56
Coverage increases with magnification. Portraits are shot at higher magnifications than shots of distant landscapes.

That said, there are two coverage concepts. Some say coverage when they mean illumination, i.e., does the lens put enough light in the format's corners. Others say coverage when they mean useful image quality, i.e., does the lens put sharp enough image in the corners.

You have to ask yourself whether your proposed application -- portraits -- needs good image quality in the corners.

You also have to remember that sometimes sellers (choose one) don't know what they're talking about or lie.

The VM says:

In the USA list in 1915-1916 Series IVa was listed for 50° as:
No2 10in focus 1.75in dia 5x7in covered
No3 11.5in 2.33in 6.5x8.5in
No4 14in 2.5in 8x10in
No5 17in 3.125in 11x14in
No6 20in 3.5in 14x17in

So a 17 inch Euryscop Ser. V. will cover around 16". This is considerably shorter than 16x20's diagonal.

Tracy Storer
16-Sep-2020, 10:08
The lenses with underrated coverage are often lenses for the repro industry, where the utmost critical sharpness (always less in the margins) was the order of the day.

Hugo Zhang
16-Sep-2020, 10:19
I know Protar V 7a 39cm has an image circle of 33 1/2 inch and will cover 20x24 at its smallest stop. The E. Klauss version I have does cover, at least.

maxi0909
16-Sep-2020, 11:03
Coverage increases with magnification. Portraits are shot at higher magnifications than shots of distant landscapes.

That said, there are two coverage concepts. Some say coverage when they mean illumination, i.e., does the lens put enough light in the format's corners. Others say coverage when they mean useful image quality, i.e., does the lens put sharp enough image in the corners.

You have to ask yourself whether your proposed application -- portraits -- needs good image quality in the corners.

You also have to remember that sometimes sellers (choose one) don't know what they're talking about or lie.

The VM says:

In the USA list in 1915-1916 Series IVa was listed for 50° as:
No2 10in focus 1.75in dia 5x7in covered
No3 11.5in 2.33in 6.5x8.5in
No4 14in 2.5in 8x10in
No5 17in 3.125in 11x14in
No6 20in 3.5in 14x17in

So a 17 inch Euryscop Ser. V. will cover around 16". This is considerably shorter than 16x20's diagonal.

So If I understand you correctly, my Voigtländer lens could cover 16x20 with a little less sharp corners?

There is a american guy names Giles Glement who uses a Goerz 500mm 4.5 Dogmar lens. This lens also should also just cover 11x14, but he does 16x20 portraits with it, even with good corner quality seen from my perspective.

Dan Fromm
16-Sep-2020, 11:16
So If I understand you correctly, my Voigtländer lens could cover 16x20 with a little less sharp corners?

There is a american guy names Giles Glement who uses a Goerz 500mm 4.5 Dogmar lens. This lens also should also just cover 11x14, but he does 16x20 portraits with it, even with good corner quality seen from my perspective.

On the face of it, no. 16x20's diagonal is around 25". That's a lot more than 16". I've directed you to the list. It has a link to a discussion that explains how to calculate image circle for distances closer than infinity given image circle at infinity. Do the calculation.

The Dogmar covers 60 degrees stopped well down. Again, whether it will cover 16x20 well enough for portraits depends on what "well enough" means and on how close up the portraits are.

Hugo Zhang
16-Sep-2020, 11:22
People don't care much about corners when doing portraits which are usually done at close distance with extended bellows. In another world, a lens that covers 11x14 at infinity will probably cover 16x20 at portrait distance. But a lens shorter than 30" does not give a pleasing prospective for 16x20 portrait.

maxi0909
16-Sep-2020, 11:33
On the face of it, no. 16x20's diagonal is around 25". That's a lot more than 16". I've directed you to the list. It has a link to a discussion that explains how to calculate image circle for distances closer than infinity given image circle at infinity. Do the calculation.

The Dogmar covers 60 degrees stopped well down. Again, whether it will cover 16x20 well enough for portraits depends on what "well enough" means and on how close up the portraits are.

I´m sorry... maybe I´m to dumb to understand this, or I need more time :/

There is a Goerz 500 4.5 for sale right now... should I buy this one instead of my Voigtländer No 6 ? Because I liked how the Goerz renders on the 16x20 images I saw. Or do you mean I would get a slightly same look with my Voigtländer?

karl french
16-Sep-2020, 14:32
Have you ever shot ultra large format? You might consider starting with 8x10 in order to get a feel for large format portraiture and landscape work. Ultra large format portraiture presents some unique problems based on focal lengths and bellows extension in terms of the logistics of using the camera.

It seems like you're ready to spend a lot of money before you know what you're doing.

maxi0909
16-Sep-2020, 22:52
Have you ever shot ultra large format? You might consider starting with 8x10 in order to get a feel for large format portraiture and landscape work. Ultra large format portraiture presents some unique problems based on focal lengths and bellows extension in terms of the logistics of using the camera.

It seems like you're ready to spend a lot of money before you know what you're doing.

Hello Karl, that´s not the problem, I already have everything, but the dark room is still in progress, will be ready in mybe 4 weeks...

But I´m still confused because I can see a full image on my 16x20 screen with both of the mentioned lenses, although everybody says, that both of them will not cover that format. Maybe it´s just illumination.

Therefore I wanted to ask if people used them for this format and have experience with it.

erian
17-Sep-2020, 04:28
Hello Karl, that´s not the problem, I already have everything, but the dark room is still in progress, will be ready in mybe 4 weeks...

But I´m still confused because I can see a full image on my 16x20 screen with both of the mentioned lenses, although everybody says, that both of them will not cover that format. Maybe it´s just illumination.

Therefore I wanted to ask if people used them for this format and have experience with it.

Coverage is usually given for infinity. When you focus closer then the coverage will increase. There are exceptions. For example coverage for reproduction lens is given for 1:1 and infinity coverage is half of it. Also coverage angle of Petzvals is rather small and when somebody says that it covers say 8x10" then they usually mean portrait distance, not infinity.

maxi0909
17-Sep-2020, 08:21
Coverage is usually given for infinity. When you focus closer then the coverage will increase. There are exceptions. For example coverage for reproduction lens is given for 1:1 and infinity coverage is half of it. Also coverage angle of Petzvals is rather small and when somebody says that it covers say 8x10" then they usually mean portrait distance, not infinity.

Thanks Erian, I thougt it would be this way, then everything would be okay :)