Matching Goerz Dagor lenses - A two lens kit for 8x10”

[Tim V]

Hi all,

I’ve been shooting 8x10” for ages, mostly using a Dagor type 210mm G-Claron which I love, and occasionally 12” Am Opt. Gorez Dagor. The former is in great condition, the latter pretty ratty!

The G-Claron has always impressed me for its relative sharpness and contrast, even with modest movements. The Goerz has a completely different look. It’s much lower contrast, with flare that seems to open up the shadows. Detail is good, but less microcontrast. I like the way it renders / looks too, but it’s very different to the G-Claron. It's like I have dial down my exposures with the 12" then slightly overdevelop to get a more punchy look to match.

I've been wanting to expand my lens selection for ages and have been keeping an eye out for Dagor type lenses online that might suit. Well, this week I caved in and bought an Am Opt 10.75” Dagor in Copal 3 off eBay. It should arrive soon… It looks to be in significantly better condition than my 12”, but far more my kind of focal length – I'm more of a wide to normal-wide shooter mostly.

I’m looking forward to seeing how this lens renders compared to my G-Claron, as in an ideal world they’d produce a look that is in the same ballpark without exposure and processing adjustment. I’m wondering if anyone else has done any tests to see how the different versions / brandings of Dagors and dagor-type lenses compare in this regard? Has anyone else put together their perfect ‘matched’ kit?

Looking into the crystal ball, I can see myself trying to hunt down good condition a Gorez Dagor 8 1/4" of the same period as my new lens to hone things in. I can't afford the fabled Gold Dot Dagor, but maybe the standard Am Opt Co Dagor will suffice?

Thanks,

T

[Greg]

240mm Dagor in a compur was my favorite
12 inch f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II BETAX 5 my first lens
switched to shooting 11x14 years ago and sold both lenses

few years ago acquired an 8x10 Chamonix and resurrected my 8x10 Norma and now shoot mainly with
250mm f/6.7 Fujinon-W
330mm f/6.8 IA Raptar, convertible to 508mm (20”), 647mm (25 ½”)
whole Chamonix system easily fits inside a backpack
on rare occasions also a 120mm WA Nikkor

[Mark Sawyer]

I have a few, and they all have their charms. The big difference seems to be whether they're coated or not; with only two interior air-glass surfaces, even uncoated Dagors have decent contrast, but AR coatings are still an improvement. The Dagor's design was also subtly improved over the decades, so later ones have a bit better resolution performance, at least from my experience. Those design improvements more-or-less coincide with the addition of coatings after WWII, so the later ones have the advantage, though you lose the old "Dagor glow" from early examples that still had spherical aberration, which was responsible for the early Dagors' focus shift.

As you're partial to wider angles, you might want to add an f/8 Wide Angle Dagor to your list of possibilities. The 165mm (4 3/8 inch) covers 8x10.

[David Lindquist]

As you're partial to wider angles, you might want to add an f/8 Wide Angle Dagor to your list of possibilities. The 165mm (4 3/8 inch) covers 8x10.

I'm sure you meant 6 1/2 inch. :)

David

[Tim V]

Thanks, guys.

I’m slowly coming to the realisation that I’m going to have to buy a 8 1/4” single coated Goerz Dagor to satisfy the itch. Maybe it won’t offer anything of substance over the G-Claron, but I’d assume two lenses by the same manufacturer of the same period would produce more comparable results - making for easier workflow etc.

I’ve been printing solidly for the last few weeks, so any excuse to get out and expose more film really…

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm sure you meant 6 1/2 inch. :)

David

No, I meant the 4 3/8 inch. That focal length of the f/8 wide angle covers 8x10, if just barely. In the f/6.8 standard version, yes, you need 210mm to cover 8x10, again just barely.

[David Lindquist]

165 mm / 25.4 = 6.496 inches

David

[Drew Wiley]

I've only used the final and most corrected renditions of gold dot Dagors, the Kern 14 inch ones, both SC and MC. Neither can compete with G-Claron PLASMAT lenses with respect to tangential performance, apo properties, image circle, and close range usage. I presume dagor barrel GC's, borrowed from graphics applications, would only have the semi-apo and sharpness benefits unless distinctly WA designated. What the only four air/glass interfaces of dagor design does allow is exceptional contrast microtonality, and in more modern versions, the most color hue saturation of any kind of camera lenses - too much in fact for chrome film in my experience, at least with the final MC rendition. I acquired my SC version after switching to color neg film instead of chromes, so can't make an exact comparison. And I mostly use it only for 8X10 b&w work anyway.

[Mark Sawyer]

165 mm / 25.4 = 6.496 inches

David

Oops, a senior moment, my bad. Still, the 6.94 inch Dagor might be a nice option for the OP.

[David Lindquist]

Oops, a senior moment, my bad. Still, the 6.94 inch Dagor might be a nice option for the OP.

Believe me I'm very aware of that phenomenon.

David

[LabRat]

I like my Dagors, but compared to my other lenses, not as bright to focus through...

Steve K

[Tim V]

From my admittedly limited experience, solely on 8x10", they have a really beautiful look to them. I'm probably in the minority of people who shoot 8x10" not for the extra resolution, and more for the love of process and a look that comes from really slowing down. Anyway, I'm a Dagor zealot.

[arri]

Vintage lenses are the most interesting thing when using 8x10"
I´am using a lot of viantage lenses in this format and starting a test series.
All lenses are in use from the single element over the two element, three lens anastigmats and dialyt four element lenses, Plasmat types, etc.

I have the Dagor style G-Claron f/9 150mm; 210mm; and 240mm
All of it cover 8x10". The 150mm hase very small dark corners but still usable. This lenses have nearly 90° angle of view.
For me this lenses are too sharp, not so interesting.

I have the G-Claron in Plasmat style as well from 150-355mm.
The angle of view is a little bid smaller but the performance of this lenses is ecellent as well, when you want really sharp lenses with a high micro contrast.

A very good lens is the Schneider Symmar 300mm f/5.6 The later versions of this lens, not the Symmar-S, has a housing made of aluminium which is not so heavy like the ealier full brass lenses.
The lens has a very large image circle and is unbelieveable sharp, has excellent color transmission and it is cheap.
Always a good choice.

Wide angle lenses a not ny favorites but I have a coated Angulon 165mm f/6.8 and a Meyer Wide angle Aristostigmat 165 f/6.3
Both lenses can be use in 8x10" with very good quality and with resere for movements.
In B&W work both lenses can use in the full angle of view of 100°.
The Angulon is a Dagor style lens and the WA Aristostigmat a four element dialyt system.
Both lenses are moderate in the price and worth to give´em a chance.

[Tim V]

I’ve always wanted a 240mm G-Claron dagor-type, but can only buy online and can’t seem to find any consensus on how to identify them over the plasmat version by it’s outer appearance or serial number. Any tips?

I love my 210mm G-Claron. Maybe the cheapest - and smallest - lens I’ve ever bought!

[Dan Fromm]

How to recognize a dagor type G-Claron? See https://1drv.ms/x/s!AggQfcczvHGN0kIjB_63NhzCEsV5

[Drew Wiley]

Tim, most 240 GC's in modern shutters, especially Copal no.1, would be plasmat style, whereas older dagor style might look barrel-mounted. But there were various options, both factory and retro. Otherwise, you can look for internal reflections. Dagor contruction has only 4 air/glass interfaces; plasmat design between 12 and 14. And if you unscrew the front and rear elements, and examine them separately, dagors are typically symmetrical and hand-number matched, but plasmats have a smaller rear element.

I can't speak for the old dagor-style GC's. I do have decades of experience with the superb plasmat-style 250 GC, along with its multicoated cousin, the Fuji 240 A, which is even smaller. Both will cover 8X10 with modest movements.

[Joseph Kashi]

I’ve always wanted a 240mm G-Claron dagor-type, but can only buy online and can’t seem to find any consensus on how to identify them over the plasmat version by it’s outer appearance or serial number. Any tips?

I love my 210mm G-Claron. Maybe the cheapest - and smallest - lens I’ve ever bought!

I bought my Dagor-style 240 G-Claron in barrel and then transferred it to a Copal 1 shutter. This is reputedly, per Schneider literature, a direct screw-in swap and it did work for me.

That said, the 240mm Dagor-style GC is good lens, but the Plasmat-style lenses are as good or better. I have several Dagors, mostly the later and better Goerz American models and like using Dagors, but modern Plasmat-pattern lenses are overall better.

[Tim V]

I’m wondering, if you transfer a barrel lens into a copal shutter, how you you calibrate and mark to f-stops for Aperture?


I bought my Dagor-style 240 G-Claron in barrel and then transferred it to a Copal 1 shutter. This is reputedly, per Schneider literature, a direct screw-in swap and it did work doe me.

That said, the 240mm Dagor-style GC is good lens, but the Plasmat-style lenses are as good or better. I have several Dagors, mostly the later and better Goerz American models and like using Dagors, but modern Plasmat-pattern lenses are overall better.

[arri]

I’m wondering, if you transfer a barrel lens into a copal shutter, how you you calibrate and mark to f-stops for Aperture?

You can measure the diameter o the f/stops of the barrel and use the result for the aperture in the shutter.
Other way, when you know which lens were mounted in the shutter you can recalculate the aperture values for your lens.
Works only when the lenses have similar optical designs, when a Tessar typ lens were mounted you get diffrencies when you calculate the values for a symmetrical lens like the Claron.

Sorry, the question were not for me but maybe it helps?

[Joseph Kashi]

I’m wondering, if you transfer a barrel lens into a copal shutter, how you you calibrate and mark to f-stops for Aperture?

The repurposed shutter came from a 210mm lens, so the 240mm lens was only 1/3 stop smaller than the marked apertures on the shutter. I just add 1/3 stop exposure to my calculations that take the usual factors, bellows extension, reciprocity, filter factors, etc. It's pretty straightforward, especially if you can do a bit of mental math.

[Tim V]

Thanks again, guys.

What's the difference between a Carl Zeiss Jena Gorez Dagor, and say the Am Opt. Co. Goerz Dagor? Am I correct in thinking the Carl Zeiss version is the same, perhaps also single coated? And which versions of the Berlin Dagor are considered of less quality?

[David Lindquist]

Thanks again, guys.

What's the difference between a Carl Zeiss Jena Gorez Dagor, and say the Am Opt. Co. Goerz Dagor? Am I correct in thinking the Carl Zeiss version is the same, perhaps also single coated? And which versions of the Berlin Dagor are considered of less quality?

To be clear, the company known as C.P. Goerz American Optical Company was in no way connected with the company, American Optical Company (or American Optical) which today is mostly known for their sun glasses.

C.P. Goerz American Optical Company started in the late 19th century as the representative in the US of C.P. Goerz, Berlin. Not sure when they started manufacturing the Dagor in this country.

C.P. Goerz American Optical Company changed their name to Goerz Optical Company, Inc. in 1964. This is based on Goerz literature dated earlier in that year that used the C.P. Goerz A.O.C. name and later in that year that used the Goerz Optical Co. name. We can thank Kerry Thalmann for this information.

The Dagors made by Carl Zeiss Jena before WWII would not have been coated. CZJ did make Dagors after WWII but not in great numbers. Safe to say these would have been single coated. I don't think any of these were mounted in shutters by the factory.

May have more later, have to dig through my stuff.

The term "Berlin Dagor" may mean different things to different people and to me is a potential can of worms....

Adding this from some on-line sources: The US entity began lens production in 1902 and got the name "C.P. Goerz American Optical Company" in 1905.

David

[Greg]

more information at
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-42491.html
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-150030.html
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150030-Differences-in-Dagors-over-the-years

[David Lindquist]

More on Carl Zeiss Jena Dagors. In 1926 the C.P. Goerz company of Berlin merged with ICA, Contessa-Nettal and Ernemann forming Zeiss Ikon. This entity was controlled by the Carl Zeiss Foundation and lens production by Goerz ceased and Carl Zeiss Jena began making Dagors. The earliest production batch of the Dagor shown in Hartmut Thiele's Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik II Carl Zeiss Jena was started in January 1928. Looking at the "Design Calculation" dates in Thiele it looks like in some cases CZJ continued using C.P. Goerz's calculations and in other cases they did a re-calculation.

So fair to say the CZJ and the US made Dagors are similar but not identical. A circa 1935 Carl Zeiss Jena catalogue shows the 21 cm f/6.8 Dagor covered 12 1/2 inches "at small stops". A circa 1960's Goerz Optical Co. brochure shows the 8 1/4 inch f/6.8 Dagor covered 11.4 inches at f/16 and 15.6 inches at f/45.

David

[Hugo Zhang]

I have to say Zeiss Dagor f/9 lenses are very nice. The 21cm version has an 18 inch image circle at small stops.

[Tim V]

Thanks for the links and commentary, guys!

I've been in the darkroom, printing a lot these last few weeks and have decided that I really love the look of my C.P. Goerz Am. Opt. Co. 12" Dagor – it's pretty beaten up and the glass certainly isn't amazing, but the results speak for themselves. Beautiful, soft rendering (relatively low contrast) but excellent detail. The G-Claron (Dagor) 210mm is great too, but a bit harder in the shadows. Could just be the idiosyncrasies of my copies, but it's fun to analyse none the less. I'm not one for the pursuit of technical perfection in these things, rather value a special kind of character – as long as it doesn't compromise flexibility. I think I'll slowly trudge my way to a good, three lens Dagor kit of same or similar vintage. 210mm / 240mm / 275mm. Done...

[Dan Fromm]

Tim, Goerz and, for a time, Zeiss are not the only makers who produced dagor type lenses. Numerous manufacturers made 6/2 and even 8/2 double anastigmats before the first World War. The number of makers producing these lenses fell off sharply after the war. Berthiot persisted for a short while after WW II -- look for Eurygraphes and Perigraphes, not all of which will fit in modern shutters -- and Boyer made Beryls until 1982, when the firm closed. Beryls are, IMO, much undervalued and are good alternatives to Goerz Dagors. They don't have Dagors' cachet. So what?

[Tim V]

Yes, lots of great options out there. Many at reasonable prices it seems. I just want a two or three lens kit that renders consistently across the board to help keep things consistent, especially at the printing stage.