355mm G-Claron verses 14" GOERZ WA Process Blue Dot TRIGOR

[Greg]

Presently I use a 355mm f/9 Schneider G-Claron on my 11x14. I have always been intrigued by a 14" f/11 GOERZ WA Process Blue Dot TRIGOR since regretting on passing up on one many years ago. Now I am 100% satisfied with my G-Claron on my 11x14. Shoot B&W and make contact prints only. My guess is that acquiring a 14" Blue Dot would be of little benefit to me.... Comments appreciated.

Also I thought that only Schneider offered Trigors. Again comments appreciated?

thanks

[Lachlan 717]

“I am 100% satisfied with my G Claron”.

Ergo no lens can improve on it for your use case. Seems a moot question.

[ic-racer]

Why not get a lens of longer or shorter focal length than the 355mm.

[John Layton]

Years ago I did some testing of a 14" Kern (swiss) Gold-Dot Dagor and a 14" Kern Blue-Dot Trigor, for the 11x14 format. The Trigor won hands-down due to its flatter field, not to mention stunning sharpness/contrast.

A bit later, I sold the Trigor and eventually purchased a new 305mm G-Claron (latest plasmat formula), and I could not be happier. The 305 actually covers 11x14 at infinity...and also compares very favorably to other lenses in my current lineup, which, among others, includes the Schneider 110XL, 150-L, and 210mm Rodenstock Sironar-S (lenses which I use for 4x5 and 5x7 formats).

At any rate...while I do admit that, yes - the Trigor (especially a late Kern manufactured example) is indeed a very intriguing lens...I would be very happy with your 355mm G-Claron pressed into service for the 11x14 format.

[Jody_S]

Life is short. If you want to try the Trigor, buy one. If you don't like it, sell it.

[Mark Sampson]

You'll never see any resolution differences in a contact print. Which basically leaves contrast and coverage. Any differences in lens contrast would be easily controlled in the printing process. Coverage- are you running out of it now? Would the Goerz lens offer more?

The blue dot Trigor may be a legendary optic... but there ain't no magic bullet.

[Drew Wiley]

The 14 inch Kern Dagor is a different animal altogether from a 14 inch barrel process WA Trigor, especially with respect to usable image circle. It's a very nice optic for 8x10, but I wouldn't call it suitable for anything bigger. The reason the older f/7.7 14" Dagors seemed to have larger coverage is that, being in bigger shutters than the no.3 of the later Kern versions, there was simply less mechanical vignetting. And those often being employed in relation to contact printing, nobody seemed to find a certain amount of qualitative diminishment toward the outer portion of the circle annoying. But it's an involved topic not directly related to this thread. The 14 inch blue dot Trigor can allegedly be fitted into a no. 3 Copal S and is reputed to have a very large circle; but it's a different optic to begin with. If I stumbled onto an mothballed old process camera with one on it, well, I could probably buy the whole nine yards for a fraction of the price of the lens alone from someone who associated it with cult status.

[Bernice Loui]

100% satisfied with the G-Claron making contact prints..

IMO, there would be absolutely ZERO difference or improvement with a 14" Blue Dot Trigor. Been there had this Goerz lens, It has higher contrast than a 360mm f5.6 Sironar N and produced "snappier" color transparencies at f22. Did this difference render the 360mm f5.6 Sironar N inferior to the Blue Dot Trigor, no.

Lenses alone are never a "magic" image maker.

Bernice





Now I am 100% satisfied with my G-Claron on my 11x14. Shoot B&W and make contact prints only. My guess is that acquiring a 14" Blue Dot would be of little benefit to me.... Comments appreciated.

thanks

[Drew Wiley]

G-Clarons are especially well corrected for close-up work (as well as excellent at infinity), if that's a needed feature. Probably the Trigor is too. Better in that respect than general-purpose studio plasmats.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, they are. Still cannot believe moving from the G-Claron to Blue Dot Trigor would make any significant difference with a contact printed 11x14.


Bernice



G-Clarons are especially well corrected for close-up work (as well as excellent at infinity), if that's a needed feature. Probably the Trigor is too. Better in that respect than general-purpose studio plasmats.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I have neither. I mostly use a 360/10 Fuji A, which is similar to a 355 GC except multicoated and in a small no.1 shutter - nice for sake of portability, but thereby also with a smaller usable image circle due to mechanical vignetting. It is significantly better than either generation of the Kern 14" Dagors tangentially or close-up. I have a total of four lenses in that focal length. The true apo barrel ones get pulled outdoors from time to time, but are primarily for lab applications.

[David Lindquist]

Presently I use a 355mm f/9 Schneider G-Claron on my 11x14. I have always been intrigued by a 14" f/11 GOERZ WA Process Blue Dot TRIGOR since regretting on passing up on one many years ago. Now I am 100% satisfied with my G-Claron on my 11x14. Shoot B&W and make contact prints only. My guess is that acquiring a 14" Blue Dot would be of little benefit to me.... Comments appreciated.

Also I thought that only Schneider offered Trigors. Again comments appreciated?

thanks

The name "Blue Dot Trigor" precedes the acquisition of Goerz Optical Co. by Schneider. I have a 1970 price list (at this time G.O.C. was owned by Kollmorgen) that lists the Blue Dot Trigor in focal lengths of 6, 8 1/4, 9 1/2, 10 3/4, 12 and 14 inch focal lengths. It further comments that these are new products effective 8-1-70. A separate sheet from 1970 comments that the Trigor series was previously available only "...as specials on a custom made basis..."

David

[Greg]

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.

My post was more academic than anything else. It was provoked by seeing a shutter mounted 14" GOERZ "Trigor" up for sale for 1K. Upon close inspection, its condition left a bit to be desired. What's interesting is that the word "Trigor" did not appear on the front of the lens. I had thought that the term Trigor was a proprietary term used (only) by Schneider to describe their Blue Dot optic. I am reminded of Stu Kay from Lens & Repro showing me a "gold dot" Dagor that had the gold dot added to the front rim of a plain Dagor... not by Schneider. Evidently Goerz lenses did not include the word "Trigor" on the front of their optics, but Schneider did.

[Drew Wiley]

Most Trigors were Goerz. I don't think Schneider ever made them, but at one time did market certain Kern lenses under their own name, or more correctly, lenses Kern made specifically for them after Schneider acquired the rights from Goerz. Others know the specific history better than me. But yep, you have to be careful about cleverly baited fishhooks on web listings, especially where overtly priced cult reputation lenses are concerned. I've seen a few totally PS-faked ones by fraudulent sellers. I'm extremely wary of any listing from Ukraine or Nigeria. But then, I'm not willing to pay wacko prices either.

[Elcan]

May I ask if a Blue Dot Trigor 355mm can be directly fit into a Copal 3 or 3s shutter?
Or does it need speical adjustment?

Thanks in advance.

[Bernice Loui]

No, Blue Dot Trigor or other Goerz lens in barrel does NOT fit direct into a modern# 3 shutter (Copal, Compur, Prontor and etc). Special thread adapter rings must be made specific to each individual lens as the barrel of each lens. Goerz, Kodak and others individually fitted the lens barrel (overall length) to each set of lens cells. Much the same was applied to their lenses fitted to shutter. This is similar to modern view camera lenses with shims to adjust-optimize lens cell sets to a modern shutter.

"Just because the lens cells screw directly into a shutter does NOT mean that lens cell set will perform as originally designed or produced."

The easier and much better way, get a Sinar or similar shutter.

Bernice




Or does it need speical adjustment?

Thanks in advance.