PDA

View Full Version : C.P. Goerz Berlin Serial numbers? (Dogmar)



J. Patric Dahlen
15-Oct-2008, 03:30
Does anyone have a list of C.P. Goerz Berlin serial numbers? I have searched the net, but only found the numbers from the american branch.

I got a Dogmar 6,3/135mm (S/N 353458) today, and according to the Vademecum it was only produced for a short time.

I wonder why the Dogmar isn't a "cult lens"? It was, and still is, Goerz improved version of the Syntor/Celor. :)

Chauncey Walden
15-Oct-2008, 09:09
Patric, if you go to the bottom of the Goerz section of the Vademecum there is a chronology which should place your lens at about introduction in 1915/16.

J. Patric Dahlen
16-Oct-2008, 03:37
1915/16 could be correct. The Tenax camera I got the lens from looks like it could be from the 1910's.

There's no chronology in my Vade Mecum. I have the second edition.

I took some test shots yesterday, with the Dogmar on a 6,5 x 9 Voigtländer Bergheil. Exciting. :)

Dan Fromm
16-Oct-2008, 04:58
Patric, in the third edition of Les Chiffres Clés P-H Pont gives this chronology:

up to 5,000 -- up to 1891
30,000 -- 1896
100,000 -- 1900
200,000 -- 1908
300,000 -- 1915
400,000 -- 1920
500,000 -- 1922
600,000 -- 1923
750,000 -- 1926

After the merger with CZJ, Goerz lenses' serial numbers were in the CZJ sequence.

Paul Fitzgerald
16-Oct-2008, 07:12
Hi there,

I just picked up another 420 Dogmar, #661178, it's also stamped with the factory Zeiss/Ikon logo and #43633, so I guess this is after the merger. Now to replace the missing aperture assembly.

J. Patric Dahlen
18-Oct-2008, 07:01
Thanks, Dan. I'm saving the list. :)

Gmynat
26-Jul-2011, 09:03
Paul

I know this thread is a little old but I just picked up a 420 dogmar myself and mine is also missing the aperture mechanism, small world, anyway I was wondering if you ever found replacement parts or created something that would work, thanks.

John Berry
28-Jul-2011, 00:11
I wonder why the Dogmar isn't a "cult lens"? :)

I have a 420 also, and it has had rave reviews from any print I have presented.

Paul Fitzgerald
30-Jul-2011, 18:07
"Paul

I know this thread is a little old but I just picked up a 420 dogmar myself and mine is also missing the aperture mechanism, small world, anyway I was wondering if you ever found replacement parts or created something that would work, thanks."

Actually I have 3, the other 2 work well. The easiest 'fix' would be to remove the outer ring and fit waterhouse stops or washer stops. You could goggle 'iris aperture' and see if anyone has them in the right size but that's expensive and time comsuming to fit and scale. I did that for the 480, handy but I think you should try the washer stops first to see which f/stop you usually use OR if you use all of them.

"I have a 420 also, and it has had rave reviews from any print I have presented."

Acura is the 'better BMW', Dogmar is the 'better Heliar'.

Sorry but I do have quite a few of each.

Paul Fitzgerald
30-Jul-2011, 21:12
I did check and Edmond Optical does have an iris assm. to fit (92mm OD)
$200 + fitting + setting the aperture scale + time out. :eek:

www.edmundoptics.com (http://www.edmundoptics.com/products/displayproduct.cfm?productid=1461&PageNum=2&Sort=displayOrder&Order=asc#products)

cyberjunkie
31-Jul-2011, 21:02
Acura is the 'better BMW', Dogmar is the 'better Heliar'.

Sorry but I do have quite a few of each.

I am not a car expert, and i don't like spending too much money on them (never purchased a new one). If i were given a free choice, by some magic trick (and no money involved) i'd go german instead of japanese.. :) Though i must admit that one of two most impressive cars i've owned was japanese (an old Subaru turbo). The other one was the first car i purchased by myself, a lovely Citroen ID 2000 (those cars, the ID and the latter DS, were called "the shark" by italian youngsters... we felt they were almost mythical vehicles).

Back to the lenses:
a few of your posts brought the Dogmar to my attention. You expressed your satisfaction about the Dogmar, as a substitution for true soft focus objectives, using the single cells alone. If i remember, you reported medium softness for the shorter cell, and an even stronger effect with the longer focal.
I got my 300mm (early example, in barrel) not long ago, and i am going to make a couple DIY lensboard to try it as soon as possible on 5x7" and 8x10".
I am very curious to see the results with the two cells alone (wide open and closed one or two stops).

With the two cells, at 300mm, i will also see how it compares with Heliars. I have no 300mm Heliar, but i have two other focals, both uncoated: a 360mm even older than the Dogmar, and a pre-WWII 210mm on Compound. All of them are f/4.5, so it would be a fair fight :)


have fun

CJ

Ole Tjugen
1-Aug-2011, 08:26
The Dogmar is a dialyte, isn't it? So rather like the Rodenstock Eurynar, which is a very sharp lens. The best way to make a soft focus lens out of one of these it to give it a light tap with a hammer - one of my Eurynars has a cracked front element, and it is very pleasingly soft.

cyberjunkie
8-Aug-2011, 19:17
The best way to make a soft focus lens out of one of these it to give it a light tap with a hammer - one of my Eurynars has a cracked front element, and it is very pleasingly soft.


My wooden and rubber hammers got a lot of use/abuse in the last days. :)
I didn't knock on the glasses, though. Just fighting with very oxidized brass barrels!

I just reported what has been posted, on this forum, by Paul Fitzgerald.
He owns a few Dogmars (see his post on this same thread), and confirms that the two cells, IF used alone, show a marked softness.
All that in perfect accordance with what's written in the Vademecum, and with the personal experience of all those who tried to use dialyte anastigmats (4E/4G) as single cells, behind the diaphragm. it is common knowledge that the single cells are corrected for astigmatism, but aren't well corrected for zonal spherical aberration (and perhaps even show a little chromatic aberration).
That's exactly what you need to have a soft focus lens...
The effect could be pleasant or not-so-pleasant, strong or delicate... but this is a totally different thing, and largely dependent on our own taste.

As far as my personal taste is concerned, i don't have an answer for the moment :)
I still have to fit my old 300mm Dogmar on a lensboard, cause i don't have a suitable flange. I'll test it on my last toy, a Pettazzi studio camera (c. 1910), which came with a large diaphragm lens holder. It won't be very soon, though. The back is made for 10x15cm glass plates, so i am trying to adapt a 5x7" sliding back to the camera, and in the meantime i am working at all the small repair jobs that must be done.

Maybe i could find a way to test the lens before i'm done with that project. I have to find a lost Jobo tank and a box of 6.5x9cm FP4... everything should be in my girlfriend's basement :(
If i do, i'll post a follow-up with my own findings (i still have to test three different soft focus lenses - marketed as such, i mean - then i'll have a chance to compare the single Dogmar cells to the "true things").


have fun

CJ