12" Dagor for portraits on the 8*10" wetplate?

[evgenys]

Hello friends,

Looking for a new lens to replace my Industar-13 300/4.5 on my 8*10" (actually 18*24cm) Russian FKD camera I was proposed to buy the old brass lens on the lensboard with no shutter and with the following sign on the front rim:
C P GOERZ BERLIN № 196615 DOPP-ANASTIGMAT Serie III DAGOR, F=300mm, 1:6,8 (see the attached picture).

As I knew Dagors are good performers, but I didn't try one by myself yet. So, I'd like to ask someone who have (or did have) this lens or someone who knows a lot about Dagors to give their advices about the suitability of lens for my tasks. The nuance is that I'm going to use this lens on the wetplate camera and I intend to use it mostly for the portraits.

Is this Dagor the right (or suitable) choice for this kind of photography or I should find other lenses? I know that there are much more suitable portrait lenses for wetplate (e.g. famous Dallmeyer 3D, or Rapid Rectilinears, special Portraits, etc.), but let's make the decision about this Dagor.
And... is $180 a fair price for this lens?

BTW, I know that the best way to decide whether to buy lens or not is to shoot with it, but the seller lives about 2500 miles away from me, so this way will be a bit difficult.

[IanG]

That's an excellent price, and as long as it's optically sound it would be a great lens for a wet-plate camera.

My 10"x8" camera came with a CP Goerz AM Opt 12" Dagor in a Compound shutter, (later factory coated after WWII), which the previous owner never used. I use it all the time and its very sharp, contrasty and an excellent performer.

It should be ideal for portraits and will hold its value.

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

It's a good proce for that lens, but I do not think it will make much difference to your 300mm Industar. The (tessar-type) Industar may possibly be a little bit sharper, and if it's coated it will give a little bit more contrast. It's also a stop faster, allowing shorter exposure times and less DoF...

As to suitability for wet-plate, the tessar construction is a few years older than the Dagor. Neither was made in the wet-plate era.

[evgenys]

...but I do not think it will make much difference to your 300mm Industar. The (tessar-type) Industar may possibly be a little bit sharper, and if it's coated it will give a little bit more contrast. It's also a stop faster, allowing shorter exposure times and less DoF...

Ole, so you can say that Industar and Dagor are comparable in their performance? :eek:

[Gene McCluney]

I think 300mm is a bit wide for portraits on 8x10, unless you are doing full-length portraits. 300mm is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens on 35mm, which is a "normal" focal length lens. If you try to do head and shoulders portraits, you will probably wind up with some facial distortion.

[Ole Tjugen]

Ole, so you can say that Industar and Dagor are comparable in their performance? :eek:

Yes, with the Industar a stop faster and probably measureably sharper. :)

The Industars made by LOMO are among the best of all fast Tessar lenses, worldwide!

[Ole Tjugen]

I think 300mm is a bit wide for portraits on 8x10, unless you are doing full-length portraits. 300mm is roughly equivalent to a 50mm lens on 35mm, which is a "normal" focal length lens. If you try to do head and shoulders portraits, you will probably wind up with some facial distortion.

... except for the fact that a 8x10" film is much larger than a 24x36mm 35mm frame. That means that the necessary extension is quite a bit more than 300mm, which changes the perspective quite a bit. A 300mm lens for tight portraits on 8x10" is closer to using a 60mm lens on 35mm (assuming 43mm as "normal" focal length), or a 180-200mm on 4x5".

300mm works fine on 8x10". A 360mm or 420mm might be better, but not by much.

[Jim Noel]

I am currently using an uncoated 12" Dagor in a shutter on my 7x17. Great coverage below f 22.

[Ernest Purdum]

The Dagor will have a larger image circle than the Tessar, but for portrait work it doesn't matter.

[evgenys]

Thank you all for your replies!


Yes, with the Industar a stop faster and probably measureably sharper. :)
The Industars made by LOMO are among the best of all fast Tessar lenses, worldwide!

Ole, if the Industar has the comparable optical performance to the Dagor, plus it has two advantages of one stop more and the coating, so why LF photographers don't pay much attention to this lens? Industar-37 costs about $40-$50, but the same F=300 Dagor costs at least $150, and people hunt for it.
I've searched this forum for the key words "Dagor" and "Industar". The results for "Dagor" gave 788 posts and for "Industar" - only 18 (in fact only one thread was completely devoted to the Industar with the only 5 posts there).
Maybe there are some another characteristics of these lenses, besides the width of the aperture and the sharpness? Maybe they are different in such qualities, as the bokeh and the view of the picture, etc. which can be described as, e.g. - dull, harsh or soft and outstanding, flat or air-tight, etc. And Dagor in this "qualities comparing contest" completely beats the Industar? :confused:

[Ole Tjugen]

Evgenys,

Dagors have greater coverage than Tessars like the Industar. Some Dagors have "better bokeh" than some Tessars, although it isn't necessarily so.

But Dagors were made in the USA for a very long time, and some very famous photographers have used Dagors. As far as I know, not a single famous US photographer has ever used an Industar.

Your search result simply reflects the fact that most posts here are written by Americans! :)

[IanG]

Dagors have another advantage over the Industar because a large number of them are mounted in shutters, so are very much more practical to use.

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

Very few German 300mm Dagors are mounted in shutter. It's mostly the late US-made Dagors that come in shutters! :)

[IanG]

Very few German 300mm Dagors are mounted in shutter. It's mostly the late US-made Dagors that come in shutters! :)
and the later German made Dagors from Schneider, who bought CP Goerz Am Opt :D

Ian

[Ole Tjugen]

and the later German made Dagors from Schneider, who bought CP Goerz Am Opt :D

... But most of those again are Swiss, made by Kern for Schneider. :)

-------

We seem to have gone completely off track here, though.

But I would advise you to try the Industar before you dismiss it, and if you do buy the Dagor do it as an investment (it's a really good price) and not because it's "better" than the Industar.

If you want an "Authentic Wetplate Lens", neither of those two will do. You would need to find a "Rapid Aplanat" or "Portrait Rectilinear", if not a Petzval.

[turtle]

...a very old thread here. Its perhaps not surprising, but photographers tend to idolise home grown equipment or those associated with 'historical fame' such that their real attributes (and weaknesses) become lost to euphoria. This can quickly become 'dagors are amazing' without any real appreciation for these qualities relative to other options. For wet plate, a dagor sounds great, but I would be surprised if the amazingly high prices being commanded by shuttered lenses are really worth it considering the idiosyncracies of the process.

[premortho]

I wondered about that myself. If he's into wet plate why do you need a shutter? Besides, I've seen pics on e-bay of those russian cameras with an internl shutter, I think a double flap type, which is more than good enough for wetplate.

[goamules]

As someone who uses Dagors with wetplate, I can confirm that for me, they are great (sharp and contrasty). And you don't need a shutter ever for wetplate, unless you are one of the pioneers using megawatt flashes.

[Mark Sawyer]

Dagors are wonderful lenses, but for your purposes, the Industar would be better, if only for the speed. In wet plate potraiture, a fast lens is important.