Opinions of Goerz Dagor/Artar lenses [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Steve Hamley

2-Jan-2009, 08:18

They made both Dagors and Artars coated and uncoated, barrel and shutter. Later ones are as good as anything else of the same vintage or better, and if the glass is clean and free of haze, can rival many if not most modern lenses.

Collectability of the "Gold" and "Gold-Dot" Dagors aside, they are primarily useful to 8x10 and larger formats where focal lengths from say 9-1/2" to 19" offer a lot of coverage that isn't available except in some very large and expensive modern lenses. Because their maximum apertures are f:6.8 -11, Dagors are often smaller and lighter than modern alternatives which make them attractive to landscape photographers who carry their gear around a lot.

Artars are also useful in the focal lengths longer than 24" where there's only one modern lens made that I know of, the 1100mm Schneider Fine Art, which is an Artar design. Again, the smaller maximum aperture made them attractive to hiking photographers, and I use a custom-mounted 10-3/4" Artar in my 4x5 kit and am very, very happy with it.

Older Dagors seem to vary in quality a bit more, some have a nice lower contrast look, and are not quite as sharp as the Artar or modern lenses, while others are just fine. Older Dagors also have larger optics in a given focal length and cover more than later ones. I have a 14" Double Anastigmat (before they were called Dagor) that does not vignette the iris on 12x20 from f:16. People shooting ULF and contact printing like these older lenses very much.

There is no complete reference that I know of, but the LF Homepage is a good start:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/classic-experts.html

The Lens Collector's Vade Mecum might also be useful, available for download off eBay.

Cheers,

Steve

Bill_1856

2-Jan-2009, 08:43

I believe that Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee only use Dagors and Artars. They could have any lenses they wanted, so it's a pretty good indication of the quality of image those old glasses can produce.

Dan Fromm

2-Jan-2009, 08:48

What are the overall opinion of the Goerz Dagor/Artar lenses, and is there a complete reference to the types of Dagor/Artar lenses made? Were they in shutters, or barrel? How do they compare to more modern lenses?
Overall opinion? There's no consensus with respect to Dagors. Some swear by, others at, them. Some claim very sharp, others very soft. Some claim huge coverage, others not much. Artars are universally respected. But note that Artars have much less coverage than the least reported for Dagors.

In shutters or in barrel? Yes.

Comparison to modern lenses? What's modern? Dagor types were made until at least 1982, Artar types (dialyte type process lenses) even more recently.

Your questions are old and have been beaten to death and then some. Use the forum's search function.

Bill, as I asked the OP, what's modern?

sanking

2-Jan-2009, 09:23

I recall reading somewhere recently that their (MS and PC) vehicle was broken into in Chicago and the thief got away with quite a stash of old Dagors and Artars. Got to be heart breaking to lose the old friends that have been the tools of your trade for so long!

For contact printing the old Dagors and Artars are fully competitive with the best contemporary glass. For enlargement with formats below 8X10 there are better options IMO.

Sandy King

I believe that Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee only use Dagors and Artars. They could have any lenses they wanted, so it's a pretty good indication of the quality of image those old glasses can produce.

IanG

2-Jan-2009, 09:44

A coated Dagor can be a surprisingly good lens, certainly on 10x8 and larger they are excellent even for big enlargements (I don't contact print).

I'd agree with Sandy though that on smaller formats there may well be better options, but it's really very dependent on the quality of a particular Dagor, they were made for such a long period of time, and also by 4 manufacturers, Goerz Berlin, Goerz AM Opt, Carl Zeiss Jena and Schneider (Kern).

Ian

David A. Goldfarb

2-Jan-2009, 09:47

For contact printing the old Dagors and Artars are fully competitive with the best contemporary glass. For enlargement with formats below 8X10 there are better options IMO.

Sandy King

I agree. I usually use my Dagors (168mm, 8-1/4", 12", 16-1/2") and Artar (19") for negs to be contact printed--8x10" and larger mostly, occasionally 5x7".

If I need really huge coverage on 4x5", I sometimes use the 168mm/f:6.8 ser. iii Dagor that will cover 8x10", but other than that, I use more modern plasmat and planar types for the smaller formats in general.

Small negs made with the 19" Apo Artar will hold up to enlargement, but it's a big lens to use on a small camera. My 12" Dagor and 19" Artar are both in barrel and have the same rear flange size, so I can use them with one adapter ring front mounted on an Ilex 5 shutter.

John Kasaian

2-Jan-2009, 09:51

Murph,

Some of my all time favorite lens is a 19" Artar on the 8x10 and a 14" Artar on
the 5x7. As Dan Fromm says there is a lot of detailed info here in the archives. As far as comparing them with modern lenses, IMHO I'd have to say that the Artars are so good that any significant difference between like photographs taken with a RD Artar as opposed to a spankin' new MC Schneider could likely be attributed more to the photographer than the lens.

Here are some of my opinions on Artars:

Longer focal lengths cover better, but normal focal lengths (for whatever your format) often cover quite nicely with adequate wiggle room for subtle movements.

Focusing at f/9 is surprisingly bright in daylight and even moderately bright artificial light.

Murph

2-Jan-2009, 09:51

I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, I will not post such questions again since it offends the forum.

Your questions are old and have been beaten to death and then some. Use the forum's search function.

Bill, as I asked the OP, what's modern?

IanG

2-Jan-2009, 10:52

I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, I will not post such questions again since it offends the forum.

Similar questions are common to all Forums, you can't be expected to have seen or read all the previous posts :D

I would like to try a late 90mm WA Dagor and a 150mm, preferably Goerz American Optical versions, on one of my 5x4 or 9x12 cameras just to compare them to my modern lenses. I'd expect them to only lag slightly behind in terms of performance once stopped down.

Coating or rather lack of it seems to play a major role in the visual differences in quality between modern and older lenses, and I've been comparing images shot with a 1919 & 1931 Tessar with a coated 1950's Tessar and last production (single coated) Xenar with my Symmar's & Sironar's. So it would be great to compare a similar focal length coated Dagor.

Ian

Michael Kadillak

2-Jan-2009, 11:18

Gene McCluney

2-Jan-2009, 11:52

Something that should be mentioned is that lens coating has more effect on lenses that have many air spaced elements, such as modern plasmats. Older designs, or designs with fewer air-spaced elements or groups benefit less from coating. Cemented groups do not have coating on the cemented surfaces regardless of age of lens.

sanking

2-Jan-2009, 12:07

That is true, and a single coated Dagor has better contrast than a single coated plasmat. One of the few Dagors I still use is an older model single coated G-Claron, which uses the Dagor design. I got this from Jim Galli somes years ago in trade and it has been one of my favorite lenses for 5X7.

Sandy King

Something that should be mentioned is that lens coating has more effect on lenses that have many air spaced elements, such as modern plasmats. Older designs, or designs with fewer air-spaced elements or groups benefit less from coating. Cemented groups do not have coating on the cemented surfaces regardless of age of lens.

Dan Fromm

2-Jan-2009, 13:12

I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, I will not post such questions again since it offends the forum.By all means ask, but please try self-help first.

Ole Tjugen

2-Jan-2009, 13:16

Personally I see nothing special about the Dagor design, and have generally been more satisfied with the "reverse Dagor" lenses I have. Artars are Dialytes IIRC, and while they are among the better of those they are by no means special.

sanking

2-Jan-2009, 14:56

What is it "specifically" that makes you more satisfied with the "reverse type Dagor" lenses? I have used both types and not noticed any specific design characteristics that resulted in performance tht I found superior.

Sandy King

Personally I see nothing special about the Dagor design, and have generally been more satisfied with the "reverse Dagor" lenses I have. Artars are Dialytes IIRC, and while they are among the better of those they are by no means special.

Ole Tjugen

2-Jan-2009, 15:04

The reverse Dagors I use are Angulons and Zeiss Doppel-Amatars.

The Angulons have wide coverage and small size for the coverage, and adequate sharpness for my uses.

The Doppel-Amatar has a very pleasing (to me) "signature" rendition - it just looks right. The Dagors I have used are "too clean to be special" while also being "not quite super-sharp enough to be special".

IanG

2-Jan-2009, 15:27

I think your parameters differ from others. My one & only Dagor came with a 10x8 camera, the previous (second) owner a US photography Professor had never used it.

However on checking I discovered the original owner had taught at the Clarence White School of Photography, he bought the best possible 10x8 camera and lens available in the US in the late 30's, an Agfa Ansco Commercial View & the 12" Dagor. He later had it coated by Goerz Am Opt after WWII.

I didn't know this when the camera arrived & I already had a modern 300mm, I tested the Dagor and was very surprised at how good it is, very sharp and comparable to a modern lens, and I prefer it's tonality for B&W work, it's closer to my Symmr's & Sironar's than my 300mm Nikon.

Ian

sanking

2-Jan-2009, 15:44

I have never used an Amatar but I have owned and used several Angulons. The coverage of the Angulons was greater than that of the Dagors, but sharpness fell off so much on the edges that in essence they offered no more useful coverage than the Dagors.

In the center of the field I found Dagors and Angulons to have similar sharpness, except for one 210 Angulon that was a real dog.

I rarely ever use a view camera lens without stopping down at least two or three stops so my comments about sharpness are based on use of the lens at f/16 or f/22. Perhaps if you are using these lenses at larger apertures you are seeing some aberrations that produce for you a pleasing look.

Sandy King

The reverse Dagors I use are Angulons and Zeiss Doppel-Amatars.

The Angulons have wide coverage and small size for the coverage, and adequate sharpness for my uses.

The Doppel-Amatar has a very pleasing (to me) "signature" rendition - it just looks right. The Dagors I have used are "too clean to be special" while also being "not quite super-sharp enough to be special".

Ernest Purdum

2-Jan-2009, 16:37

No, such questions are by no means offensive. It's not surprising that you were unaware that other people have had the same questions long ago.

Dan has pointed out the Forum's search function which can be very useful. If, however, after trying it you still have questions, post them. The first couple of lenses I purchased were terrible choices. I would have been so much better off if the Forum had then existed.

Steve Hamley

2-Jan-2009, 17:04

Ole's comment that there's nothiing special about the Dagor design has merit, but others have commented to the effect that the Dagor sort of hits a "sweet spot" in balancing size, weight, and performance. It isn't the smallest, isn't the lightest, but quite lighter than most modern competitors with similar coverage, and it has as much sharp coverage as most of the plasmat competition with some extra illumination to spare.

I think it's worth noting that all Dagors were not created equal being manufactured by four different companies over a hundred years or so. I have no doubt a modern lens' sharpness falls off less dramatically from center than a pre-1904 Double Anastigmat and is better wide open, but when comparing a late 9-1/2" Gold Dot Dagor to a similar 270mm G-Claron side-by-side on 8x10, there was no discernible difference in sharpness or color rendition on color transparency as far as I went, 4x magnification.

But there are modern alternatives as good or better such as the Computars in the 150mm, 210mm, 240mm, 270mm, and 300mm focal lengths, the Rodenstock Apo Sironar-W series, a 355 G-Claron or 360mm WA Apo Nikkor instead of a 14" Dagor, and a 450mm Nikkor-M instead of a 19" Dagor.

Cheers,

Steve

Dan Fromm

3-Jan-2009, 06:40

For a variety of Dagor type lenses' cross sections and calculated performance, see:

http://www.dioptrique.info/base/n/n_dagor.htm

http://www.dioptrique.info/base/n/n_beryl.htm

http://www.dioptrique.info/base/n/n_protar.htm (look at the ones characterized as 3/3)

or look here http://www.dioptrique.info/base/f/f6.htm and look at all 3/3 lenses

There ain't one Dagor or dagor type, there is many.

Drew Wiley

4-Jan-2009, 17:02

Dagor-style lenses were made in such a variety over such a long time that there is no valid single description of them. But I have owned several of the very last ones
made, the most highly corrected ones, namely, the 14-inch Kern Swiss dagors.
Compared to the best modern plastmats, these dagors have less tangential correction (so not as good at extreme tilts or swings), are very slightly less sharp (though you'd need a lot of enlargement to discern this), and are not as well corrected at very close focus range (as opposed to Fujinon A or G-Claron lenses of the same focal length). But the multicoated Kern (Schneider) dagors had the least flare of any lenses I have ever used. The contrast was so high that I often found these particular lenses difficult to use with color transparency films. I also
detested the no.3 Compur shutter with these - no T setting and a distinct vibration.
So I currently use the next-to-the-last generation of dagor, the single-coated Kern,
which has an older-style multi-bladed no.3 Copal shutter. A wonderful lens for selective focus (not soft-focus) use on the 8x10, though I prefer my plastmats and dialytes for general use. But for ULF you'd need one of the still older dagors with more coverage: not as well corrected, but this is not a handicap when one is contact printing. Otherwise, unless you have special needs, I think the cult status of dagors is overestimated, as are the current selling prices. There are plenty of other lenses which are more affordable and actually better corrected for routine applications.

Rodney Polden

5-Jan-2009, 18:39

Thank you everybody for the interesting contributions on this topic - I have read a certain amount about Dagors and Artars previously, but I found answers among your posts to questions I have not seen addressed elsewhere. Great forum!

Dion M

1-Apr-2009, 02:54

I doubt very much that Murph the OP offended the forum. Dan is not "the forum" and I doubt that he was ever offended anyway. I've spent countless hours reading these forums, and there is so much good info on here, even though info is repeated now and then. Hopefully I'll be able to share some info too, once my brain is completely full.

I, for one, learned a great deal from reading this thread, even though I stumbled upon it accidentally!

Steve Hamley

1-Apr-2009, 03:56

Your questions are old and have been beaten to death and then some. Use the forum's search function.

Dan, you're answer is as old as the question! ;)

Steve

Dan Fromm

1-Apr-2009, 05:51

Dan, you're answer is as old as the question! ;)

SteveAnd still on point, Steve.

Toyon

1-Apr-2009, 06:10

I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, I will not post such questions again since it offends the forum.

Bud, no one person speaks for the forum, so you are off track when you believe that you have "offended the forum". Some people are cranky, others not. You should know though that people have unusually intimate and personal feelings about some lenses. Dagors and Apo-lanthars are close to the top, while virtually no one will get heated up about Raptars or Ysarons. You've stepped into the egg basket. So take the debate with good cheer.

Vaughn

1-Apr-2009, 06:24

Dagors and Apo-lanthars are close to the top, while virtually no one will get heated up about Raptars or Ysarons.

Hey! I really like my 210mm WA Graphic Raptar! You got something against them, Mister?!!! ;) ;) (a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man...)

Vaughn

Jim Galli

1-Apr-2009, 07:49

Well, as long as we've resurrected the post, I'll stir the pot and add, I've never had a Dagor I didn't like and I've never had an Angulon I did. Still many Dagor's have come and gone in my lens cupboard. Partly because they're so replaceable. 2 standouts that never get considered when I'm in cash flow crunch mode: A 360mm Doppel Anastigmat Symmar of 1939 vintage, and a mis matched early style G-Claron 225mm (has 240 front and 210 back.) Both are standouts. A good Cooke triplet will give any Dagor a run for it's money. A Zeiss Tessar will not.

Plenty there to stir up trouble for quite a while ;)

Ole Tjugen

1-Apr-2009, 08:32

That's funny - if I should ever have to cut back, I would keep my Angulons and Symmars and let the rest go. apart from the Heliars and the Apo-Lanthar with the scratched rear element, that is.

Toyon

1-Apr-2009, 10:46

Hey! I really like my 210mm WA Graphic Raptar! You got something against them, Mister?!!! ;) ;) (a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man...)

Vaughn

I like Raptars' too. But it's a bit of a mystery to me what was different about the "Graphic" version?

Mark Sampson

1-Apr-2009, 12:35

Perhaps a 'Graphic Raptar' was originally sold with a Graflex/Graphic camera, or the name might refer to the lens being meant for a process camera. Most Graflex Optars were made by Wollensak in the first place...

Dan Fromm

1-Apr-2009, 13:25

Mark, it isn't clear what a Graphic Raptar is or was made for, but I think your idea that they were made for use on Graflex' products is a bit fanciful. FWIW, I have a 138/4.5 Graphic Raptar. This one was talked up on Usenet as a good macro lens. Mine isn't, its even worse than a 135/4.5 Tominon, of which the three I've had were all, um, poor macro lenses. All lousy tessar clones.

Process lenses tend to be slow, rarely faster than f/8.

Toyon

1-Apr-2009, 14:44

Wollensak had its own line of process and apo process lenses, as well as some f8 special copy lenses. The "Graphic" doesn't seem to fit into these categories. In addition, Wollensak made an extremely popular lens for the Graphic camera that is much smaller than the "Graphic" series. So I am not convinced that the Graphic Raptar was either a process or a handheld camera lens.

Vaughn

1-Apr-2009, 15:04

It is a barrel lens, so I have always assumed it to be a process lens.

"WOLLENSAK 81/4"(210mm) f/6.8 GRAPHIC RAPTAR WIDE FIELD LENS No.D99xxx" is what it says on the lens. There is a "w" inside a "C" between the f6.8 and the word "Graphic"

Closes down to f45.

Dagor77 had a bunch of them he was pawning off on us eBay buyers. Covers 8x10 just fine -- not a ton of movement, but some. I use it a lot under the redwoods...fast enough to have a easily viewable image on the GG and my exposure times are long enough to leisurely use the lens cap as the shutter. I only do alt processes -- contacting in-camera negatives -- so it is plenty sharp for me.

Vaughn

PS...I also use my 19" RD Artar quite a bit (another barrel lens) on my 8x10. Another sweet lens for my purposes...though tough to use in Yosemite -- often too much light, even at f90 with 125 ASA film. I guess I need to get some EFKE 25 ASA for that.

Jim Fitzgerald

3-Apr-2009, 07:35

Vaughn, yes do try the Efke 25. I know you will like it. I have some in 11x14 and have used my Ilex 21 1/4" process lens @ 128 with it. Made a nice carbon neg. Sharp as hell and I can't wait to print it.

Jim

Lynn Jones

8-Apr-2009, 13:46

Lets not make a big deal out of this.

DAGOR (Double Anastigmat by GOeRrz), a wide field 65 degree angle lens made for about 100 years. They were made by Goerz, Zeiss, American Optical, Burke & James, and finally by Schneider. Last designed by Schneider, made under contract by Kern in Switzerland, with incredible quality.

Goerz Artars, 4 element all air spaced peaked apochromatic correction with coverages of 35 to 45 degrees. Superb quality over the years.

Schneider bought the last known American Goerz company (it was out of business, only the paperwork existed) for the purpose of using the name. They redisigned the Dagor, I don't think they redesigned the Artar, but instead designed an all new 6 element plasmat type balanced correction apochromatic lens called the "Blue Dot Tricor", a truly remarkable lens covering at least 70 degrees. Schneider bought that company in the 1970's, redesigned certain of them and because they were so busy making other lenses, they had Kern Optical manufacture them (you know the company that made Alpa and Bolex lenses).

Lynn

E. von Hoegh

14-Apr-2009, 15:04

Lynn Jones

14-Apr-2009, 15:59

As a former VP of B&J and close personal friend of the owner of B&J, Mr. Drucker, who owned the company dating back to shortly after WWI. I knew George Drucker from the 1950's until his death, to when he was within months of age 100, I'm aware of the history of B&J and Goerz, the purchase of Goerz by B&J. I strongly disagree with most of what you say.

You sound pretty good for a guy who is 144 years old and dead for 94 years.

Lynn

WalterE54

30-May-2009, 20:38

You should know though that people have unusually intimate and personal feelings about some lenses. Dagors and Apo-lanthars are close to the top, while virtually no one will get heated up about Raptars or Ysarons. You've stepped into the egg basket. So take the debate with good cheer.Excellent!

I love my Dagor's, but my one Artar (19") is far sharper! I used to have a 16.5" Dagor, but I really didn't enjoy using it much, and found it not as sharp as my 6.5, 12, or 14".....my current 12" is a "Berlin" one and seems as sharp as my (stolen) American Optical one.....

Turner Reich

30-May-2009, 22:10

I'm glad you made this post at this time, much new information from people who may not have made an opinion in past threads. New folks can provide new looks at old equipment.

I have several RD Artars, too many to post about but I use my 16.5 in shutter more than the 16.5 in barrel and my 19 in barrel is superb. Look at the examples book by AA, the Golden Gate before the bridge photo was taken with an Artar. As for look on an 8x10 I prefer the 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar in an Ilex #5 shutter, especially with portraits, over an Artar. The TR's are fine for the purpose they were designed for too, I use them unconverted and rarely a second conversion. I have them from 4x5 to 11x14, it got to be a compulsion collecting them, getting ones without any flaws in well working Betax and Rapax shutters.

If you come by a lens you like it might well be worth getting it into a shutter if possible if it is a barrel, otherwise it's the hat trick or a Packard.

They are still in business after all these years.
http://www.packardshutter.com/

gth

13-Mar-2010, 00:12

So, starting out in LF.

Camera is on it's way in. It has a Packard Ideal shutter and G.P. Goerz Am Optical Co Apochromat Artar 6" f/5.6 # 774611.

Can anyone tell me what to expect from this setup?

I don't seem to find a reference to that particular lens. Anyone know anything about it?

5.6 seems unusually large aperture for Goerz Artar from what I can read on the net.

Steve Hamley

13-Mar-2010, 07:07

If it's f:5.6, it isn't an Artar or a Dagor. If it is a 6" Artar, it likely won't cover 4x5 (you didn't say what format) except at near 1:1 which is likely what it was intended for.

Artars have about 43 degrees of critically sharp coverage although they will illuminate more. It takes about 53 degrees of coverage for a lens to sharply cover its focal length.

You should expect good performance within 43 degrees of coverage, and maybe a bit more more depending on how much you enlarge. If the lens has haze, it will have less contrast and at least less apparent sharpness.

The best idea for beginners is to have at least one lens that's current generation or one generation old, in a working shutter with clear glass. Buy from a reputable dealer and learn LF while not having to worry about balky shutters, hazy glass, and series filters.

Cheers, Steve

Richard K.

13-Mar-2010, 08:04

Searching old posts is a good place to start but we must remember that experience is a dynamic event continually in need of update even when the subject matter may be old. I would rather have 15 quasi redundant posts than few posts because it expresses interest in the medium with new participants coming into the fold. New LF photographers increases the odds that this medium will continue to enjoy its niche for another few years which is a very good thing.

Cheers!

Totally agree with my learned friend above. I myself have posted questions that have been discussed before because: a.) I couldn't find a forum reference - I once had the search engine return NOTHING because the 3 words I used to describe my search were deemed too common and not used EVEN THOUGH THEY FORMED THE EXACT TITLE OF THE LOOKED FOR POST! b.) I wanted to see if any new insights from new people are available c.) occasional revisitation is good for clarification and d.) I'm old and forget :)

Your questions are old and have been beaten to death and then some. Use the forum's search function.

Bill, as I asked the OP, what's modern?

Dan, that question is old and has been beaten to death and then some. Use the forum's search function. :) :rolleyes: :D

Dan Fromm

13-Mar-2010, 11:43

Richard-come-lately, I don't agree with you.

I didn't ask for the consensus on what modern means, I asked the person who originated this thread on 2-January-2009 what itmeant by modern. The forum's search function doesn't read minds. I wish it did, then we wouldn't have to ask posters to explain further.

I'm sorry that it can't read your mind ...

Richard K.

13-Mar-2010, 12:11

Richard-come-lately, I don't agree with you.

Um, I was just trying to inject a bit of mirth upon seeing the way you asked what some might say was an asked before question right after you took up a poster, by using the same words you did. Maybe it wasn't that funny...but seriously, no offense intended...(hence the 3 smilies right after)
As far as you attaching a label to me, I didn't arrive late; I read the whole thread. As I said, I was, perhaps misguidedly, just injecting levity. Or do you mean to the forum? I've been here since Feb. 2001.

The forum's search function doesn't read minds.

That was precisely my point. That even when I quoted the exact title,the search failed because the words were too common and therefore not used. I've had THAT experience many times. It's just not that great a search engine. And when we expect someone new to the forum to try to see if the topic was discussed before, we may be asking more than we think we are. Regardless, I'm OK with re-visitation if it benefits someone - the new poster, or if it generates updated information.

I'm sorry that it can't read your mind ...

Not me, that would be scary.

gth

13-Mar-2010, 14:09

Thanks Steve, it will be interesting to see what actually arrives, but something is up because searching here and "everywhere" I can't find a reference to a 6 inch f: 5.6 Artar.

I can't make out the lens rim specs on the Ebay picture, so maybe I'll get another Ebay sucker punch. Won't be the first time.

I've already understood I need to buy another lens in shutter, any suggestions for a reasonable, inexpensive choice. We're not talking AA here!

It's a 4x5 format camera which looks to be in decent shape and it comes with a roll film holder. Figured I learn movements using roll film to start with. I'll have two film holders too, to play with, and I have 100 sheets of Chinese 4x5 b/w coming in so I can pretend to be a LF photographer. It will be an interesting experience I am sure.

Any other advice for newbie are most welcome!

J. Patric Dahlen

7-Jun-2010, 08:35

The reverse Dagors I use are Angulons and Zeiss Doppel-Amatars.

I wonder if the Zeiss Doppel-Amatar really is a reverse Dagor? It doesn't look that way in this picture:
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/img/info/zeiss_10/zeiss_10_04.jpg

The booklet:
http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/zeiss_10.html

c.d.ewen

7-Jun-2010, 10:00

Thanks Steve, it will be interesting to see what actually arrives, but something is up because searching here and "everywhere" I can't find a reference to a 6 inch f: 5.6 Artar.

Sorry to come late to the party.

See the picture in my post #16 in this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=45315). The RD version is f/8. I don't know about the "plain vanilla" version. I see Andy Glover says it'll cover 4x5. And, no, I don't have the lens anymore.

Charley

Lynn Jones

7-Jun-2010, 16:43

Hi Bill,

We need to talk I'm too busy right now teaching 7 days weekly duting the summer session. I was however, in the optics business for over 30 years starting in the 60's, Calumet/Ilex, Calumet/Rodenstock, DOI/Fuji,DOI/Kowa, B&J, BBOI, Computar, Ilex, and to a lesser extent a couple of others, includding a lifelong friendship with Geogre Drucker, owner Pres. of B&J before I became VP of the company (yes at age 79 I'm old enough.

Lynn

Murph

6-Aug-2010, 06:22

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/goerz_3.html

Resource

wang888

9-Aug-2010, 23:08

Love my 19" APO Artar in #4 Acme shutter. Much more economical than any modern 19". At F11 it's slower and a tad bit smaller too (excluding the fuji 450c), but that is the trade off. Plenty of sharpness.

cosmicexplosion

10-Aug-2010, 02:33

I am sorry to have inconvenienced you, I will not post such questions again since it offends the forum.

i am not offended even though he has a point, look before you leap, but here is a place that you can ask a question and get different angles, i for one have learnt a great deal from your post.

it all depends on who is here at the time and who answers, its a forum so there will always be new people like me asking the same old questions, but we must all stick together and keep the dream alive

so thank you for that

aslo i just got my new 14" and 19" dagors out of customs, as they came from u.s to australia and cost me $425 just in customs EGAD!... so i am exited to try them out.

Bruce Barlow

10-Aug-2010, 03:18

My 19" Apo-Artar absolutely glows on my 8x10. Absolutely no depth of field, but who cares?

mdm

10-Aug-2010, 03:25

Good luck with the dagors then.

Murph

21-Aug-2010, 16:56

Can the larger Dagors/Artars be put in shutter? 35", 40" 72"? They are listed a barrel lenses in the catalog above.

Michael Kadillak

21-Aug-2010, 17:16

Yes, up to a point.

I own a 35" and a 42" Red Dot Artar that have both been put into an Ilex #5 shutter.

Another viable alternative is the time tested Packard Shutter that can be easily installed on the front of the lens. They work in this instance because large long focal length lenses are used to cover big sheets of film and the inherent desire to utilize small apertures for depth of field objectives translates proportionally to long exposures involving reciprocity correction. The Packard shutter does a great job in this application with a little practice with the bulb. The plan B is the infamous Black Stove Pipe hat over the lens.

Robert Opheim

5-May-2011, 12:35

IanG in response to your question about a 90mm dagor compared to a modern lens - I have been comparing my ca. 1940 (759---) (92mm) 3 5/8" f/8 WA American Optical Co. Dagor to a 1980's 90mm f/6.8 Grandagon. Both lenses are clean. The Grandagon qualities: more even light distribution and sharp focus and a lot more coverage. It is in a newer copal shutter with 5 sided aperture. It appears to my eyes that the out of focus area goes more out of focus quicker that the circular aperture of the Dagor. The Dagor qualities are: creamy rendition of subject matter, the center is in just ever so slightly more sharp focus( I shoot landscapes, built environment, primarily) with added contrast at corners. The lens covers 4x5 stopped down but has only slight movements. There seems to be plenty of contrast with this lens in the negitives. The shutter is a compur with many blades in the aperture - this circular aperture seems to contribute to a much suttler focus fall off when the image goes out of focus. I tend to find I don't like the focus fall off of my modern lenses (those in especially 5 blade copals) to those of a more rounded aperture. I have been enlarging 4x5 to 16x20" prints.

These two lens really portray a different look to a recorded image. Both are good lenses but do different things. I would like to hear a discussion about how lenses play an important role in image creation. What are the suttle differences in these lenses. I had a 1930's 160mm Hugo Meyer Weitwinkel lens (double gauss) I was interested in
seeing what it did. However it ended up having quite a bit of fungus. The negitives have a wonderful out of focus fall off.