PDA

View Full Version : Teach me about Dagors?



Blumine
4-Nov-2008, 20:25
I have been shooting with nothing but modern optics for the last several years and the results have been pretty good. There has been this growing urge to try something more retro if you will.

Seems lots of people love thier Dagor type lenses, honestly I have never shot with one, but would love to play with one or at least something like a Dagor.

What exactly is there in the 300mm to 360mm range that wont break the bank too much? Any thoughts would be awesome.

Blumine

John Kasaian
4-Nov-2008, 20:43
AFAIK the better ones are marked American Optical and/or C P Goerz. Some of the ones marked "Berlin" are post-war cobbled-up-from-parts jobs and generally have a poor reputation. Dagors were also produced by other manufacturers under license and these can be very good (and usually less sought= less expensive.) 300mm and 360mm (12" & 14") are sought after by 8x10 shooters which will drive the price up. You can sometimes find these in broken Ilex General shutters (they look a bit like dial set Compurs) pretty cheaply---you can use them "barrel lens" style if the shutters are shot (btw everyone I've talked with has horror stories about Ilex Generals!)

ljsegil
5-Nov-2008, 03:57
Since the subject has been brought up, I'll throw in another part of the question. How do the older Goerz Doppel-Anastigmat Serie(s) III lenses relate to the more recent, and sought after, Goerz (or other manufacturer) Dagor lenses like the Gold Dot(Ring)? I am confused as to whether they are the same design lens with the Dagor name simply being an acronym that Goerz used for marketing newer lenses, or did the designs in fact change with the re-naming and/or also over time and different manufacturers? The Dagor and Goerz names seem to cover a lot of ground (actually lenses, I guess), and I find it hard to understand just what the various different names, series, and manufacturers signify when the Dagor name (or earlier Goerz designations) is used for a lens (not to even begin to get into the use of a "Dagor" design in different guises by other of the major manufacturers for their own lens types).
Clarification welcomed.
Thanks,
LJS

Dan Fromm
5-Nov-2008, 06:31
Larry, Blumine, sooner or later Ole Tjugen will reply and clear up all issues, correct all errors.

There's no one Dagor design. This because the Dagor, a Goerz trade name, and other such lenses have been redesigned as new optical glasses became available. Also because all lens designs involve compromises and trade-offs and designers can change their minds about what's more important. Eric Beltrando (visit www.dioptrique.info, see his cross sections of and calculated curves for genuine Goerz Dagors and other similar lenses) has made this point to me with respect to the 1965 redesign of the Boyer Beryl, a Dagor clone.

Eric shows a cross section of the original Goerz 6/2 Doppel Anastigmat in http://www.dioptrique.info/objectifs/00053/00053.HTM . It is a pair of identical cemented triplets, the outer element is biconvex, the middle on biconcave, and the inner element a meniscus. There are many variations on this theme, whose elements have different radii of curvature, thickness, refractive index, and dispersion than the original. They're all the same design type, no two have the same design.

The original Schneider Symmar and G-Claron were dagor types. So is Boyer's Beryl. And I'm sure there are others.

So there's no short answer to your question, Larry. If you want to know what effect the various redesigns have had, buy as many dagor type lenses as you can find and ask them.

Blumine, the best thing for you to do, if you want a dagor type, is to go looking. Prices, especially for non-Goerz dagor types, are all over the map.

N Dhananjay
5-Nov-2008, 07:25
Kingslake's book covers the Dagor in some detail and it is of some historical note since it was among the early anastigmats. As mentioned, the Dagor is a symmetrical design, with each group consisting of 3 cemented elements. Since there were only 4 air-glass interfaces, it was not very flare prone. Since the design was around for many, many years, it was tweaked a fair bit. The early G-Clarons were supposedly Dagor designs, the Angulon is a reversed Dagor design etc.

The classic Dagor was initially designed by von Hoegh at Goerz (while Pual Rudolph was simultaneously working on a similar idea but which eventually evolved into the Satz anastigmatic and the Protar). Since it became such a popular design (Kingslake suggests that 30,00 units were sold by 1895), I'm sure it was licensed out and when the patents expired, many firms offered Dagor design lenses. Most of them perform very well. The consensus seems to be that the golden, gold rim etc Dagors are mostly marketing tactics. The gold dot Dagors, in contrast, are considered really good. They were supposedly designed by Schneider and manufactured by Kern. In general, Dagor coverage declined with the years but this was probably because designers decided to mechanically vignette the design to exclude the outer edges which were of poor performance compared to the center.

All in all, and especially considering its age, it is a very fine lens.

Cheers, DJ

Tracy Storer
5-Nov-2008, 07:31
Doppel Anastigmat Goerz lens lens was originally designed in 1892, the name was shortened to Dagor in 1904. The lens most people refer to is the Series III and its successors. Because each cell is fully cemented, the assembled lens has only 4 air/glass interfaces which means that even older uncoated examples can perform very well, I have several and most (if not all) are uncoated, and they are excellent. YMMV

Not all "Dagors" have the good coverage characteristics that I and others prize them for, there is a "Type B Dagor" which is a Dialyte (4/4) design. (like an Artar, or Dogmar)

There is also a Series IV Dagor which you don't see often, which is f/11 instead of 6.8 or 7.7 but otherwise very much like a Series III.

David A. Goldfarb
5-Nov-2008, 07:52
If you want a bargain on a Dagor, look for older uncoated ser. iii Dagors. They usually have more coverage than later versions and good contrast, but not quite as good contrast and color rendering as the later coated versions.

Jim Galli
5-Nov-2008, 08:00
There is a ramble by me with pithy comments by others about this subject but it's over at APUG. (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum44/29141-some-dagor-s-non-dagor-dagor-s-i-have-loved-rlp-really-long-post.html)

Dagor's are the equivalent of sticking your little toe into the big less sharp than modern multicoated plasmats pond to see if you'll like it. You can go for a virtual swim on my web pages. Soft focus is an acquired taste so don't despair if you don't immediately like the softness of a Pinkham Smith or Verito.

A good coated Dagor is a near equivalent of the modern plasmat. They were always excellent, and when they got coated after WWII they became stellar. The difference if it is quantifiable is in how the contrast is distributed. A Dagor may only register 48 lppm to the Sironar-S's 68 but the kinder displacement of contrast with the Dagor may be worth the last few lppm's that most of us don't really need.

That phenomenon goes up as the format goes up. To a guy doing contact prints with 8X10 the difference of the loss / gain relationship is a no brainer. Ask Michael Smith. He only uses Dagor's on the 8X20. Then to a guy who is doing chromes with a 4X5 that will get enlarged 12X you may move into the realm where the Sironar is the better solution.

Toyon
5-Nov-2008, 08:12
AFAIK the better ones are marked American Optical and/or C P Goerz. Some of the ones marked "Berlin" are post-war cobbled-up-from-parts jobs and generally have a poor reputation. Dagors were also produced by other manufacturers under license and these can be very good (and usually less sought= less expensive.) 300mm and 360mm (12" & 14") are sought after by 8x10 shooters which will drive the price up. You can sometimes find these in broken Ilex General shutters (they look a bit like dial set Compurs) pretty cheaply---you can use them "barrel lens" style if the shutters are shot (btw everyone I've talked with has horror stories about Ilex Generals!)

Just to clarify, those older lenses marked CP Goerz Berlin are usually superb, and because of their cemented construction are contrasty even without coating. If you can find one in a working compur shutter, its nearly as good as a modern lens, but with better bokeh and slightly better detail in shadow areas due to a slight carryover of light to dark areas called "veiling".

Tracy Storer
5-Nov-2008, 08:52
There was a post a couple years ago (I think on here) that explained that the lenses engraved "Berlin Dagor" were assembled from spare glass by Burke and James, and are generally, if not universally, bad.
A lens engraved "C. P. Goerz, Berlin" or "Goerz American Optical" will be the real deal, and should be fine.

Drew Wiley
5-Nov-2008, 10:00
Dagors are some of those "cult" lenses that tend to be overrated and overpriced compared to modern lenses, unless you have specific need for certain subtleties some of them can provide. I have owned several of them in the 14-inch (360mm range). The
last one made, the multicoated Kern dagor in Compur 3 shutter, had the least flare and
best color transmission of any lens I have ever used, but the contrast actually was so
high that it was difficult to use with most transparency films. I also positively hated the shutter (no T setting and a distinct vibration). I currently own a single-coated Kern in Copal 3, which is more agreeable to my own technique with 8X10. The multibladed aperture and slight lack of correction toward the corners wide open make it a very nice portraiture lens, with a lovely background "bokeh", something modern plasmats don't provide. Neither generation of the Kern dagors exhibit the focus shift sometimes reported with older dagors. They are nearly as sharp as the best modern lenses, but for closeups, strong tilts, etc, a Fujinon A or G Claron in this focal range is
going to be decidedly superior. G-Clarons seems to be the most affordable at the moment, unless you are willing to put up with a big clunker of a 5.6 plasmat. Clean dagors seem to require quite a bit of luck to acquire at a reasonable price, even the older ones. You might look at options like a Kowa graphic.

E. von Hoegh
5-Nov-2008, 11:23
The B&J Dagors are invariably marked "Series III", while the genuine C.P. Goerz Berlin Dagors say "Serie III". Later (real) Berlin Dagors are marked "C.P. Goerz Berlin.".
I did a comparison of a 1960-ish 150 Symmar and a 1908-ish 6" New York Dagor, and there was really nothing to choose between them; (except for the lack of flash synch on the Dagor) the 4x5 chromes were virtually indistinguishable.

Bill_1856
5-Nov-2008, 14:11
Incidentally, Goerz is pronounced GURTS (with a soft "u").

Mark Sawyer
5-Nov-2008, 14:19
Just a note that the Dagor is very closely related in design and performance to the Plasmat. The only difference is that one of the cemented set of elements in the Dagor is air-spaced in the Plasmat. I doubt you'd see any appreciable difference between a coated Dagor and a modern Plasmat, and only a slight loss of contrast due to internal flare with an older uncoated Dagor.

David A. Goldfarb
5-Nov-2008, 14:44
Dagors are excellent lenses, but modern plasmats really are sharper while they usually have less coverage. I agree with Jim in that I usually use Dagors for negs to be contact printed unless I need the extra coverage, and usually use modern lenses for 4x5" and smaller. One particular exception is the 168mm ser. iii Dagor that covers 8x10", and is great when I need as much front rise on 4x5" as I can get, but I'll almost always pick the 210/5.6 Symmar convertible over the 8.25" Gold Dot Dagor for 4x5", because the Symmar has plenty of image circle for 4x5" and is sharper.

seawolf66
5-Nov-2008, 15:12
There are so many good lens out there why limit yourself to One type ?

Henry Suryo
5-Nov-2008, 15:27
There are so many good lens out there why limit yourself to One type ?

Because Dagors really are special, to me at least, they seem to produce an image quality I like best. If you like experimenting then yes why limit yourself, but if you know what you like and know what tool to use and consistently achieve this look, then why not?

CP Goerz
5-Nov-2008, 17:39
'I have been shooting with nothing but modern optics for the last several years and the results have been pretty good. There has been this growing urge to try something more retro if you will.'


Ahh yes, yesss! Finally you have realized that that gnawing hunger deep within your belly is the undernourished and underfed artistic soul desperately crying out for the mothers milk of sustenance that only a Goerz Dagor can provide. Indeed it is lucky that you have the intestinal fortitude to have stuck for so long while the pain and anguish you feel within grew exponentially with each negative drawn from the fixing bath. Now though, NOW is the time to come home to the place of warm soup, crusty bread and freshly made butter...its time to strap on a Goerz lens!


But what do you think you'll see? Will it be all you desire or even have the courage to dream of? Ha Ha Haa! Yes my friend!! welcome, Welcome to the world you see about you...unencumbered with LPPMM charts and @nal retentive metering practices trying to cram shadows and highlights on a sheet of film, a Dagor is a lens that gets both while set on AUTO!!




I'm sure you have read the most lavish and exaggerated claims about these lenses but let me tell you...they are all true!! but they don't even come close to how remarkable and beautiful the first print you look at will be. I dare say that if upon that print you spy that your eyes remain as dry as sawdust then Sir... you have a cold stone in place of a heart!


Mark my words and read them with care, a Goerz Dagor is the finest of photographic optics that some say holds supernatural powers over all who dare speak of its virtues and as such are blinded to its 'faults'...but how can imperfection occur in a lens that IS perfection? A conundrum I cannot untie with a mind as feeble as mine but with your clear reasoning and sharpness of eye it will unravel like Alexanders Gordian knot on the appointed day.





'What exactly is there in the 300mm to 360mm range that wont break the bank too much? Any thoughts would be awesome.'



Just buy the best, get a Goerz American Optical Series III or a Goerz(Berlin) Doppel Anastigmat, either lens can be found in shutters or barrel. If having reached this point of optical Nirvana you feel unworthy and cannot live without constant testing and upgrading then you can always re-sell it for about the same if not more than you paid for it. Not too many investments in oneself can be held to such high standard or regard.



Just my own neutral and unbiased opinion.


CP Goerz/dagor77.

Ole Tjugen
5-Nov-2008, 18:12
Larry, Blumine, sooner or later Ole Tjugen will reply and clear up all issues, correct all errors.
...

That would be superfluous at this stage. :)

I'll just confust the matter by stating that I prefer "reverse dagors" myself - like the Zeiss Doppel-Amatar. :D

Mark Sawyer
5-Nov-2008, 18:48
Mark my words and read them with care, a Goerz Dagor is the finest of photographic optics that some say holds supernatural powers over all who dare speak of its virtues and as such are blinded to its 'faults'...but how can imperfection occur in a lens that IS perfection?

But if you want a really nice Dagor, you should get a Zeiss Dagor... :D

Toyon
5-Nov-2008, 18:50
I've got an excellent 12cm berlin dagor. Anyone know under what occasions did Goerz use the use cm vs mm designation?

Blumine
6-Nov-2008, 18:01
Wow! Come back after two days to lots of great info! Thanks a bunch, I have lots or reading and looking to do, but I must get my hands on one of these mystical beasts. It would be used for 8x10, which is the reason I want 300-360mm lens.

Thanks!

Blumine

Jim Galli
6-Nov-2008, 18:11
Wow! Come back after two days to lots of great info! Thanks a bunch, I have lots or reading and looking to do, but I must get my hands on one mystical beasts. It would be used for 8x10, which is the reason I want 300-360mm lens.

Thanks!

Blumine

Blumine, they begin to cover 8X10 at 210mm. A 240 will cover nicely if you fancy a wide field lens. 270 or 10 3/4 is hard to find but is a really nice size on 810 so don't limit yourself more than you need to.

John Jarosz
6-Nov-2008, 18:42
I have seen references to Goerz lenses, sometimes called dagors, where a 300mm will cover 8x20. Trouble is there are so many variants in sizes, names, F#'s, focal lengths, that I can't seem to get a definitive description of exactly which 300mm (approx) will cover 8x20.

Can someone shed some light on this aspect of dagors?

Thanks

john

CP Goerz
6-Nov-2008, 20:05
A 300mm dagor of any type won't give good corner detail, you can fudge it with hyperfocal but reality bites when you look at the neg out the fixer. The best lens for 8x20 is the 16 1/2" Dagor, a 14 will do it but you have to be careful about focus and stop down all the way.

John Kasaian
6-Nov-2008, 20:42
IIRC Ansel Adams often used a 10-3/4" Dagor.

If you should happen upon a 10-3/4" Dagor in your hunt for one of these fine lenses, if you buy it, be very, very careful that it isn't the same one AA used (he's probably taken all the great pictures out of it and there aren't any left!) :D

Ash
7-Nov-2008, 03:59
This is such an entertaining thread! Love it!

I have a 180/6,8 Dagor (original CP Goerz Berlin from the turn of the century) that came off a strut camera, lived in a cupboard, made its way into my grandfather's 'camera stuff' to be used as an enlarger lens, and luckily for me wasn't given away with all the darkroom gear when he cleared it out. Instead one day I went over and he handed it to me telling me "it was a very expensive lens at one time"

And I love it!

But.... I hardly use it!


I took it out of the barrel and mounted it into a shutter (poorly I might add) and it still performs amazingly well. I'll be shooting with it this afternoon so I may upload some images in the next day or so once they're dev'd and scanned. No time to print recently! :(

ljsegil
7-Nov-2008, 04:32
While we're waxing poetic on the Dagor, would anyone care to put the Protar Series VII lenses into perspective in this bit of history? Were they not somewhat similar in design and performance to the Serie III Dagors (or Doppel-Anastigmats, more correctly)? Or if they differed, how so? How might one expect the performance of the two to differ in comparable focal lengths? Which has the greater coverage, reputed sharpness, contrast, Bokeh, and other sought after characteristics? If faced with a ~12" version of each, of similar vintage in a similar shutter, on the shelf in front of you, towards which might you find your hand drifting and why?
Just curious, thought I might muddy the waters a bit,
LJS

Dan Fromm
7-Nov-2008, 04:49
Ash, funny you should mention a 180/6.8 Dagor.

Its time we revisited this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=13109&highlight=lousy+dagor, which began as a rant about a 180/6.8 Dagor's coverage and became a wide-ranging discussion about how good Dagors really are.

I think it is hilarious, also that it makes clear just how subjective our judgements of lenses' good and bad qualities can be.

Cheers,

Dan

Ole Tjugen
7-Nov-2008, 07:15
No, the Series VII Protar is a four elements in one group construction. Series VIIa Doppel-Protar is a combination of two of these. :)

There was however a Dagor-type Serie IV f:6.3 with each cell being f:12.5, but that was very short-lived and only made by Zeiss Jena.

When doubled the difference isn't great, but the single cells of a Protar Serie VII are better corrected for astigmatism and should be superior - except that the complexity of the lens leads to a high risk of misalignment. The more elements in a cemented group the more difficult it is to make a lens that lives up to expectations.

N Dhananjay
7-Nov-2008, 07:16
While we're waxing poetic on the Dagor, would anyone care to put the Protar Series VII lenses into perspective in this bit of history? Were they not somewhat similar in design and performance to the Serie III Dagors (or Doppel-Anastigmats, more correctly)? Or if they differed, how so? How might one expect the performance of the two to differ in comparable focal lengths? Which has the greater coverage, reputed sharpness, contrast, Bokeh, and other sought after characteristics? If faced with a ~12" version of each, of similar vintage in a similar shutter, on the shelf in front of you, towards which might you find your hand drifting and why?
Just curious, thought I might muddy the waters a bit,
LJS


von Hoegh and Paul Rudolph were working simultaenously on the idea of an anstigmat using the basic idea of a Dagor configuration, but Goerz got the patents first. So, Paul Rudolph continued to tinker with the design and came up with the Protar. The Dagor individual cells are fairly well corrected except for lateral color, coma and distortion. These were taken care of by the symmetrical design. However, this meant that when the cells were used singly (i.e., when the lens was used as a convertible), the performance was markedly worse. You could use a strong monochromatic filter to reduce the lateral color aberrations but you would have to stop dowm considerably, especially to deal with the coma. The Protar added an extra element to each group so that each group was corrected for coma, which made their performance in the converted role much better.

Choosing between Dagor and Protars is difficult. Protars work better converted but Dagors typically have beter coverage. When using the full lens (i.e., unconverted), I don't believe there is much to choose from in terms of sharpness, contrast, bokeh etc (although others might disagree). I think there is a letter from Ansel Adams to Edward Weston saying the Dagor is better for 'enlargability' purposes and the Protar gives a more 'lifelike' image or something of that nature. But really, the biggest tradeoff, in my opinion, is the greater image circle traded off against having better convertible performance.

Cheers, DJ

Pete Roody
7-Nov-2008, 09:00
No, the Series VII Protar is a four elements in one group construction. Series VIIa Doppel-Protar is a combination of two of these. :)

There was however a Dagor-type Serie IV f:6.3 with each cell being f:12.5, but that was very short-lived and only made by Zeiss Jena.



There was also a Series VI lens produced in 1893/94 that had 3 cemented elements per group and was convertible. It was replaced with the Series VII.

Pete Roody
7-Nov-2008, 09:26
For Zeiss info you can check out:

http://www.archive.zeiss.de/dosuche.FAU?sid=6C2243C24&DM=2&DM=2&RPOS=1

It is in German but it is easy to navigate. Just type the Series Number (i.e. VII) in the search box.

CP Goerz
7-Nov-2008, 18:52
'While we're waxing poetic on the Dagor, would anyone care to put the Protar Series VII lenses into perspective in this bit of history?'


Imagine the Dagor as the highest peak of lens design and the Protar as a wanna-be also-ran. A series of compromises hastily cobbled together to say that it too was a 'fast' convertible lens.





'Were they not somewhat similar in design and performance to the Serie III Dagors (or Doppel-Anastigmats, more correctly)?'


Were it not for the innocence behind the question I would say that you surely jest in a most cruel fashion. An apple and orange are both fruit, both round and both are usually a bright colour and yet they are not the same or even similar. One must bite the Goerz Dagor apple to taste the crisp clarity then take a similar bite from the pithy bitter rind of an orange to see that these two species are not interchangeable or have derived from similar parents.




Or if they differed, how so?




One brief glimpse of a ground glass is enough for you to tell. The protar will have an appearance similar to squinting your eyes against the sun while the Goerz lens will reveal all that is under it.



'How might one expect the performance of the two to differ in comparable focal lengths? Which has the greater coverage, reputed sharpness, contrast, Bokeh, and other sought after characteristics?'




I was unaware that 'bokeh' was a sought after characteristic within a lens....blur??! I am glad you used the word 'reputed' before saying sharpness as it clearly applies to one lens and not the other. A Zeiss lens can be made sharp by melting it down and pouring it into a mold marked 'Goerz Dagor', under any other circumstances this shameful use of earths resources should not be tolerated. If its coverage you are after the legend that is Dagor will suffice for the smallest camera to the very largest, there is a tried and true reason that BIG cameras have a Dagor on the front.



When it comes to contrast both lenses have four air to glass surfaces in combined form but sadly the Protar was made by Zeiss and as such will no doubt suffer from balsam separation thanks to the sloppy workers who tried to cram badly matched elements together then in an attempt to hold the ship together filled in the cracks with glue that as we have all seen has turned yellow and flaky through the passage of time. If you use the center of the lens you'll be OK though don't expect too much in the way of fine etched detail to be present in the negative.









If faced with a ~12" version of each, of similar vintage in a similar shutter, on the shelf in front of you, towards which might you find your hand drifting and why?
Just curious, thought I might muddy the waters a bit,
LJS



Carl Zeiss has relied on this argument for years to muddy the waters...just can you tell the difference? If you can't see the difference then choose the cheapest, if you can see the difference then its clear that the Goerz Dagor will be the one found in your camera bag and hanging out front of your camera. I must say that in one instance my hand did drift to the Zeiss Protar...I was in my lens room putting away some lens glass while I paused between some bites of lunch that I noticed a large rat make a run at my haggis. Although I was famished and the Dagor was close at hand I wasted a crucial 1/4 second to grab a Zeiss Protar VII and hurl it at the scurrilous beast, my aim was true and I have to say that this one instance was the best use that I have ever put to a Zeiss Protar.




When it comes to just the pure 'convertibility' component of the discussion my preference is for the Goerz Pantar but having checked my calendar there hasn't been a month of Sundays for one to show up in. My second choice is for a Wollensak Series I Raptar, its made in a few focal lengths but I always found these chaps to be well behaved and exhibited far less focus shift when the single cells were used. It may be worth noting that Ansel did use the single cell from a Dagor to make 'Frozen Lake and Cliffs', I'm quite sure many of you have seen it in person and never thought that it was blurry or soft.



How I wish all such photographic queries were so clear cut to answer!! :-)


CP Goerz/dagor77.

Bill_1856
7-Nov-2008, 20:21
Here's a wonderful DAGOR story, from Ken Ruth via Tito Sobrinho to me.
Dr. E.Von Hoegh, having finished the design of his Double Anastigmet lens, made an appointment to show it to the lens people at Carl Zeiss (the world's leading optical company at the time).
Von Hoegh was quite early for his appointment, and being from out of town spent some time roaming through the great city. It was nearly Christmas, and when he wandered through the marketplace they were auctioning off a fine, fat goose. He put his money down, and much to his surprise won the thing on the spot.
Well, it wasn't something that happened every day, and he wasn't a rich man so he had no choice but to tuck the live goose under his arm and proceeded to the appointment at Carl Zeiss.
You can imagine the attitude at the great institution when this country bumpkin showed up with a live goose under his arm. He was sent packing, in no uncertain terms, without even looking at his lens.
A few days later, (without the goose), he took his lens to C. P. Goerz where he was immediately hired and eventually became their chief lens designer.

Jan Pedersen
7-Nov-2008, 20:57
In those days, more than 100 years ago it was quite common to give name to a goose so, i am wondering if anyone know if E. Von Hoegh ever named his goose.
Out of respect I would like to put that name on my lensboards holding my dear Dagors.
Perhaps the goose have something to do with the organic feel there is to the prints made with a Dagor?

Mark Sawyer
7-Nov-2008, 21:30
While we're waxing poetic on the Dagor, would anyone care to put the Protar Series VII lenses into perspective in this bit of history?

Historical trivia: When introduced in 1890, the original trade name of the Protar was the Anastigmat. Zeiss changed the name to Protar when other manufacturers started calling any lenses corrected for astigmatism Anastigmats.

Mark Sawyer
7-Nov-2008, 21:50
And from Kingslake's 1951 book, Lenses in Photography:

"The Dagor and the Double Protar - As soon as the Protar was launched, P. Rudolph of Zeiss and E. von Hoegh of Goerz simultaneously and independently attempted to combine the two halves of the Protar into one cemented component. Rudolph claimed that he was combining the old achromat and the new achromat into one lens (the Triple Protar of 1893, and the Quadruple or Double Protar of 1894), while von Hoegh felt that he was combining in one lens the strong dispersive surface which performed the spherical correction and the weaker collective surface which eliminated the astigmatism (the Dagor of 1892). However, the results were remarkably similar, and even today both the Dagor and the Double Protarare regularly manufactured in this country. Because of its additional degrees of freedom, each half of the Double Protar could be separately coma-corrected, so as to enable the front and the rear components to be used alone or combined together in pairs of any desired focal length. Such a lens is called "Convertible". Recently H. W. Lee of Taylor, Taylor and Hobson separated the halves of the Double Protar and made the very highly corrected Cooke Convertible Anastigmat f/6.8."

And really, who would argue that the Cooke Triple Convertible isn't one of the most desireable lenses in the history of optics, the present included?

Steve Hamley
7-Nov-2008, 23:27
In those days, more than 100 years ago it was quite common to give name to a goose so, i am wondering if anyone know if E. Von Hoegh ever named his goose.
Out of respect I would like to put that name on my lensboards holding my dear Dagors.
Perhaps the goose have something to do with the organic feel there is to the prints made with a Dagor?

I think the goose was named "Dagor77"!!

Cheers,

Steve

Jim Galli
7-Nov-2008, 23:46
You guys are making me nuts with all this goose and golden egg stuff. Tomorrow I'm going to combine a protar VII and a single Dagor and invent the next classic soft focus wonder lens. I wonder why Goerz never played the mix and match casket set game like Zeiss did with the lovely D sets and F sets. I've always heard that Dagor's were slightly contrastier than a comparable double Protar, but all things being equal, I haven't found the Dagor any better in use than a double protar. We're talking uncoated here.

Ole Tjugen
8-Nov-2008, 01:36
...I was in my lens room putting away some lens glass while I paused between some bites of lunch that I noticed a large rat make a run at my haggis. Although I was famished and the Dagor was close at hand I wasted a crucial 1/4 second to grab a Zeiss Protar VII and hurl it at the scurrilous beast, my aim was true and I have to say that this one instance was the best use that I have ever put to a Zeiss Protar.

...

Was that the Protar you sold me?

If so, what will you use the next time a rat tries to nab your haggis?

CP Goerz
8-Nov-2008, 02:12
I do believe it was! Some congealed blood was cleaned from the shutter and a small dent was removed, sorry about that. I have a 9" Protarlinse to take its place so I have another weapon at hand ;-)

CP Goerz
8-Nov-2008, 02:15
I think the goose was named "Dagor77"!!

And strange to say I have given many a lady 'the goose' too!!! Funny how things come full circle!!!! :-)

Struan Gray
8-Nov-2008, 03:06
..... I wonder why Goerz never played the mix and match casket set game like Zeiss did with the lovely D sets and F sets. ....

Goerz might not have done so, but others did:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Satz-Objektive-Voigtlaender-und-Sohn-im-Kasten_W0QQitemZ110306805674QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item110306805674&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1229%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Dan Fromm
8-Nov-2008, 05:48
Goerz might not have done so, but others did:

http://cgi.ebay.de/Satz-Objektive-Voigtlaender-und-Sohn-im-Kasten_W0QQitemZ110306805674QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item110306805674&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1229%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Struan, this interchange has made me worry a little about Jim. He has a couple of dagor type G-Clarons of different focal lengths and has reported several times that he's swapped cells between them to good effect. Perhaps his memory is going. I hope not.

As I keep saying here, Boyer's Beryl is a dagor type. In the '30s, Boyer sold Beryl sets containing three cells, all of different focal lengths. They don't seem to have offered the sets post-war, but did sell Beryls as convertibles until 1982.

Cheers,

Dan

Ole Tjugen
8-Nov-2008, 06:30
... I wonder why Goerz never played the mix and match casket set game like Zeiss did with the lovely D sets and F sets. ...


That would be the Goerz Pantar-Satz: 7 front cells and 7 rear cells for up to 1000mm focal length. But the single Pantar was four cemented elements.

Jan Pedersen
8-Nov-2008, 11:45
I think the goose was named "Dagor77"!!

Had E. Von Hoegh known about Andrew's pictorial or colorful description about his invention he would no doubt have called the goose Dagor77 but, i believe the name Dagor was a later C.P. Goerz product name instead of the long Double Anastigmat.

ljsegil
8-Nov-2008, 13:49
I have to say, CP, that aside from a sarcastic and demeaning tone, your posting in reply to my questions shed little light, though much verbiage, into what I thought had been a very interesting discussion. For those of us not graced to have experience with all available vintage lenses some things which seem clear and incontrovertible facts to you may be legitimate arenas for discussion for the rest of us. I would not even have objected to the tone of your reply had you backed your assertions with more than just opinion presented as though it were the given word. I have usually found your contributions to these forums valuable and very much worth reading, and imagine they will usually continue to be so, but this time I am sadly disappointed. I do remain curious as to the grounds for the vehemence of your opinions and would welcome a more reasoned explication of them.
Peace,
LJS

CP Goerz
8-Nov-2008, 15:09
Ever heard of tongue-in-cheek? Do all things photographic have to be serious? Lighten up, I think you totally missed the point of what my post was about.

Ash
8-Nov-2008, 15:12
Sometimes I laugh even when I don't understand the joke.

Paul Fitzgerald
8-Nov-2008, 15:32
the Ultimate insult, literally dancing on the grave of C.P.Goerz, Berlin:

Carl Zeiss Jena Goerz Dagor (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=310097593668)

(someone else'e auction)

ljsegil
8-Nov-2008, 15:58
CP, perhaps I did miss your point. Wouldn't be the first point I've ever missed, only wish it could be the last though I know it won't. And I guess light(en) is what it is all about anyway. Still wondering if you are really that down on Zeiss and their Protars, however, and if so why, as others speak quite favorably of them. Your opinion is valued, if not always understood.
Peace and brotherhood,
LJS

Dan Fromm
8-Nov-2008, 16:26
Larry, I don't know why but I thought you'd be able to spell shtick. In order to sell lenses, Andrew does stand-up comedy.

Paul, y'r remark to the effect that Goerz was merged into the Zeiss Ikon combine, with CZJ picking up the lens designs, not CZJ into Goerz, raises an interesting and completely off topic question. What did Zeiss (east and west), Schneider, and Rodenstock do right that all of the other European lens makers did wrong? Why are these companies nearly the only ones left standing Europe? Yes, I know that many of the French firms are parts of EADS and do secret things, regard Cooke Optics, successor to TTH, as basically in zombie mode.

Cheers,

Dan

Gene McCluney
8-Nov-2008, 18:06
Many companies over the years leave the "consumer" business, yet still are active in military/industrial optics, where the margin of profit is much higher.

Paul Fitzgerald
8-Nov-2008, 21:39
Zeiss v Goerz was a bench-racing feud like Ford v Chevy, having both names on the same lens was the kiss of death and Zeiss dropped it. (Besides, everyone knew Voightlander was the top tier all along. :D )

"What did Zeiss (east and west), Schneider, and Rodenstock do right that all of the other European lens makers did wrong? "

Any answer would start a war. :eek: Logic and proportion do not apply to brand loyalties.

ljsegil
9-Nov-2008, 04:56
Zeiss has been very actively expanding their lens product offerings for 35mm rangefinder, SLR, and even Nikon SC mount cameras, and continuing to produce top quality medium format lenses for the newer cameras in the Hasselblad, Rollei, Sinar, and Leaf lines. Might they perhaps choose to return to the large format market? There are at least a few of us (small kick in the tuchus, CP, only in jest) that would welcome a new line of top quality lenses to compete with the existing manufacturers (especially since it looks like Fuji may be phasing out), and perhaps offer once more the faster lenses they were once famous for producing. At least in th 35mm format they have kept their offerings reasonably affordable when matched against the relevant competition such as Leica, Nikon, and Canon.
Just a thought, worth no more than the CRT/LCD that it is printed on.
Yours in fine glass,
LJS

IanG
9-Nov-2008, 06:36
What did Zeiss (east and west), Schneider, and Rodenstock do right that all of the other European lens makers did wrong? Why are these companies nearly the only ones left standing Europe?

Dan

These companies made better lenses, had higher quality controls, and in the case of Zeiss had stronger links with surviving camera manufacturers. In addition all 3 restructured and re-equipped after WWII so had state of the art factories compared to competitors in the UK & US..

In comparison British companies were producing lack lustre designs, late Ross, Wray & Dallmeyer lenses aren't exactly desirable. TTH (Cooke) survived and were bought by Rank, the large UK based film & entertainment company. But Rank held the company back starving it of investment, the new independent Cooke company is now highly innovative and competitive but fully committed to manufacturing specialist optics for the film industry, hardly "Zombie mode".

Ian

IanG
9-Nov-2008, 06:48
the Ultimate insult, literally dancing on the grave of C.P.Goerz, Berlin:

Carl Zeiss Jena Goerz Dagor (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=310097593668)

(someone else'e auction)

Paul, the insult is really how few Goerz designed lenses were produced by Zeiss after the merger of various companies to form Zeiss Ikon,. The irony is that it's claimed that the Dagor design was offered to Zeiss first, but they turned it down.

Ian

John Kasaian
9-Nov-2008, 08:36
These companies made better lenses, had higher quality controls, and in the case of Zeiss had stronger links with surviving camera manufacturers. In addition all 3 restructured and re-equipped after WWII so had state of the art factories compared to competitors in the UK & US..

In comparison British companies were producing lack lustre designs, late Ross, Wray & Dallmeyer lenses aren't exactly desirable. TTH (Cooke) survived and were bought by Rank, the large UK based film & entertainment company. But Rank held the company back starving it of investment, the new independent Cooke company is now highly innovative and competitive but fully committed to manufacturing specialist optics for the film industry, hardly "Zombie mode".

Ian

Kodak certainly had state of the art equipment after ww2( inluding facilities for rare earthglass production and Rudolph Kingslake) Ilex and Wollensak were certainly top of the line as well.

What I suspect happened with the US manufacturers is that the cards dealt by the post war economy killed them off, not lack of quality. Excellent german and japanese glass cost less to produce and market (I'm guessing!)

Dan Fromm
9-Nov-2008, 09:54
I'm considerably surprised that Ole Tjugen, who's mentioned having one and liking it very much, hasn't brought forward Zeiss' own Dagor type, the Amatar. According to the VM it is slightly better than the Dagor.

Paul, I wasn't asking about product quality but about business decisions, external circumstances, and luck. The european optical goods industry didn't all die, so it seems reasonable to wonder what the survivors did right and the departed failures did wrong.

Also, the Dagor layout lost patent protection long, long ago. If it really is so wonderful, one has to wonder why so few makers besides Goerz and successors made Dagor types, especially after 1945. Perhaps the type has disadvantages relative to other design types that might be faster, less expensive to make, or better.

Cheers,

Dan

Paul Fitzgerald
9-Nov-2008, 10:02
InaG,

"Paul, the insult is really how few Goerz designed lenses were produced by Zeiss after the merger of various companies to form Zeiss Ikon,."

Goerz produced their own glass in-house and their designs need different glass than Zeiss made.

Forgetting two world wars and the rubble between, from what i can gather:

Dallmeyer, TTH, Suter, Voightlander, Goerz, ect. were private companies so when the principle heads died or retired so did the companies. Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock were corporations that did not depend on a single head or family to run the companies, seems to have worked well for them.

Kodak, Wollensak and Ilex definitely made top tier products BUT they continued with large format, the Eruos shifted to medium format, then the Japanese went to 35mm. With each market shift the Americans were obsoleted. Taking the dollar off the gold standard and instituting price freezes put these companies out of the market. It never was a quality issue, these lenses are still well sought after today.

In an Atomic world in a Space Race, optical performance was no longer the 'Holy Grail' and the best engineers went into other fields, such is life.

Jim Galli
9-Nov-2008, 10:02
Btw Dan, my memory is fine. I'm well aware that Schneider made Symmar's about 1952 that were Dagor type and triple convertible. That was why I never winced at the possibility of a 225mm G-Claron (240 front 210 rear). My question was why Goerz never did this, not whether it had ever been done. I suppose the answer is that Goerz wasn't quite the whore that the others were. It's a stretch to say a dagor is convertible at all. A stretch American Optical wouldn't sell out to? There was a time when the horrid Angulon reverse dagor's were touted as convertible. FWIW I have almost one of every type lens ever devised and many Angulon's have come and gone, but I've never felt the need to keep one of them.

Dan Fromm
9-Nov-2008, 11:19
Jim, I'm delighted to learn that you're not in the grip of Alzheimer's.

I know that the American branch of Goerz, which was severed from the German branch in 1917 (?), survived decades longer than the German branch, which was merged into Zeiss Ikon in 1926 (?). I know that Goerz American Optical Co. (not to be confused with American Optical Company of Springfield, MA) made or at least sold Dagors to the end, i.e., after Schneider took it over. But I'm not aware of many new designs from Goerz American after 1917. They made Metrogons under license for mainly military purposes, also Biogons and Planigons, same deal. They made Artars and Hypars, both originally German designs. The Rectagon seems to be a new one designed in the US. What have I missed?

I have no idea why Goerz American never offered Dagors as convertibles. Eric's curves for a single 1910 (French Patent # 422 742) Dagor element give the impression that its pretty dreadful, but there's no guarantee that better performance couldn't have been obtained with newer glasses.

If you want to play with it, I have a 210/6.8 Beryl in barrel whose cells are direct fits into a #1. Dagor type; Boyer claims the rear cell is usable as 360/13.

Cheers,

Dan

Ole Tjugen
9-Nov-2008, 14:29
I'm considerably surprised that Ole Tjugen, who's mentioned having one and liking it very much, hasn't brought forward Zeiss' own Dagor type, the Amatar. According to the VM it is slightly better than the Dagor. ...

I did mentioned it, back in post #19. :D

But the Amatar is not a Dagor-type, it's a reverse Dagor - rather like the Angulon!

paul08
12-Nov-2008, 18:36
"Ahh yes, yesss! Finally you have realized that that gnawing hunger deep within your belly is the undernourished and underfed artistic soul desperately crying out for the mothers milk of sustenance that only a Goerz Dagor can provide."


The art is in your head, not your lens. That's just "effect." :)

CP Goerz
14-Nov-2008, 18:11
Ahhh but if it were only so clear as to you dear Paul to the rest of us as yet unenlightened masses. We have not reached the state of pure perfection of light that you have AND so you may scoff from such lofty heights we mere mortals have yet to attain. We are not that far behind and with a mere $300 be granted the joy of feeling as you do.

Is it in the head or the heart? So often we are guided by the head but truly the heart is the one that really makes the final decision. Good shooting to all, as long as you are making worthwhile images does it really matter??(well....unless its a Goerz does it make a difference?)


CP Goerz./Dagor77.

Rodney Polden
20-Nov-2008, 13:04
The thing I like best about the Dagor77 design is that it's so damn woolly and so damn sharp all at the same time..... kind of verbal bokeh or something.

John Jarosz
23-Nov-2008, 08:28
This discussion has been quite helpful in aiding me understand the Dagor mistique.

Appropriately, there is now on Ebay a 240mm F9 Dagor (item # 320319806365) that is touted for even 12x20.

Can someone knowledgeable comment on the claims made in the auction? It seems that the discussion in this thread would indicate that the claims are not possible to attain, but I would like to see an explanation.

If the claims are untrue, then it's these kinds of claims that contribute to the confusion over the use of short FL lenses for ULF. If they are true, well, that explains the price.

Thanks

John

Dan Fromm
23-Nov-2008, 09:23
John, the ebay listing smells of a hyperventilating liar in OZ who's sold under other screen names, including pak harry 1944 and cameo need ham. In this case, although the vendor is hyperventilating it isn't lying.

According to the VM, "Wide Angle Dagor f9.0 This was a later lens and was listed in 1924 in 75mm for 4.25x3.25in, 100mm for 6.5x4.75in, 125mm for 8.5x6.5in, 150mm for 9x7in, 180mm for 10x8in, 210mm for 12x10in, 240mm for 15x12in all for stopped down use (Goe014) This lens can cover at least 100°, and 150mm is actually useful on 10x8in when stopped right down. (There is a patent for an f9 wide angle anastigmat of this type to Goerz (Brit Pat. 209,093 of 1922), using a low R.I. meniscus with a high R.I. flint for the biconcave and baryta flint for the external biconvex lens. The design was aimed at reducing astigmatism at wide angles.)"

The lens on offer's trade name "Weitwinkel - Dagor" contains the text string "Dagor" and it is in the Dagor design family, but it is in no way an f/6.8 or f/7.7 Dagor with restricted maximum aperture. The lesson here is that design family is no guarantee of performance. For more on this idea, compare claimed coverage for these two very similar lenses: Cooke Ser. VIIb and Wide Field Ektar.

For curiosity I did the arithmetic, and found that a 240 mm lens that covers 100 degrees will cover a 572 mm circle at infinity. The formats given in the listing (8x10, 11x14, 7x17, 8x20) all fit in that circle. So if the lens on offer actually covers 100 degrees, as reported in the VM, it will cover those formats.

I'm not sure that f/9 WA Dagors really cover 100 degrees. This because coverage is an elastic concept whose meaning in manufacturers' propaganda has changed over time. Modern Schneider and Rodenstock catalogs, for example, use much more stringent criteria for coverage than seems to have been used in between-the-wars catalogs.

All that said, f/9 Dagors have their partisans and their high prices seem to be justified. Nearly $US 1400 seems like a lot to me, but there may be people who are willing to pay at least that much for the lens on offer. If it gets a bid, the bidder must value it at least that highly.

Cheers,

Dan

Martin Courtenay-Blake
23-Nov-2008, 12:20
InaG,

Dallmeyer, TTH, Suter, Voightlander, Goerz, ect. were private companies so when the principle heads died or retired so did the companies. Zeiss, Schneider and Rodenstock were corporations that did not depend on a single head or family to run the companies, seems to have worked well for them.

When TTH became part of the huge and vastly underfunded Rank organisation the interest to Rank (even though primarily a film and entertainment organisation) was the metrology equipment...especially the Talyrond surface measurement devices...manufactured by TTH. Everything else was simply given the Rank Taylor Hobson badge and development seemed to stop.

Luckily Cooke continued the range of highly regarded movie camera lenses and as we all know the occaisional LF offering...just not enough of them

Martin

clay harmon
23-Nov-2008, 12:28
I have a Carl Zeiss Jena Dagor 240/9, and it indeed has formidable coverage. It will cover 7x17 without a doubt, and is not mush in the corners. I know Kerik uses his on his 14x17, and it just has a tiny bit of the corners of the image area that are not covered. I think as long as you are stopped down to a reasonable f/32, it will be certainly sharp enough for contact printing. This is in contrast to the older Schneider Angulon 210 that I had a few years back that would illuminate the entire 7x17 negative, but would never really get sharp in the corners, no matter how much you stopped it down.


John, the ebay listing smells of a hyperventilating liar in OZ who's sold under other screen names, including pak harry 1944 and cameo need ham. In this case, although the vendor is hyperventilating it isn't lying.

According to the VM, "Wide Angle Dagor f9.0 This was a later lens and was listed in 1924 in 75mm for 4.25x3.25in, 100mm for 6.5x4.75in, 125mm for 8.5x6.5in, 150mm for 9x7in, 180mm for 10x8in, 210mm for 12x10in, 240mm for 15x12in all for stopped down use (Goe014) This lens can cover at least 100, and 150mm is actually useful on 10x8in when stopped right down. (There is a patent for an f9 wide angle anastigmat of this type to Goerz (Brit Pat. 209,093 of 1922), using a low R.I. meniscus with a high R.I. flint for the biconcave and baryta flint for the external biconvex lens. The design was aimed at reducing astigmatism at wide angles.)"

The lens on offer's trade name "Weitwinkel - Dagor" contains the text string "Dagor" and it is in the Dagor design family, but it is in no way an f/6.8 or f/7.7 Dagor with restricted maximum aperture. The lesson here is that design family is no guarantee of performance. For more on this idea, compare claimed coverage for these two very similar lenses: Cooke Ser. VIIb and Wide Field Ektar.

For curiosity I did the arithmetic, and found that a 240 mm lens that covers 100 degrees will cover a 572 mm circle at infinity. The formats given in the listing (8x10, 11x14, 7x17, 8x20) all fit in that circle. So if the lens on offer actually covers 100 degrees, as reported in the VM, it will cover those formats.

I'm not sure that f/9 WA Dagors really cover 100 degrees. This because coverage is an elastic concept whose meaning in manufacturers' propaganda has changed over time. Modern Schneider and Rodenstock catalogs, for example, use much more stringent criteria for coverage than seems to have been used in between-the-wars catalogs.

All that said, f/9 Dagors have their partisans and their high prices seem to be justified. Nearly $US 1400 seems like a lot to me, but there may be people who are willing to pay at least that much for the lens on offer. If it gets a bid, the bidder must value it at least that highly.

Cheers,

Dan