PDA

View Full Version : 14" Schneider f/8 MC Gold Dot Dagor



Blumine
3-Jul-2009, 04:16
Either I was very lucky or immensely stupid, but I managed to find, I believe, the last model of Kern Schneider 14 inch f/8 MC Gold Dot Dagor in a black Compur 3. I haven’t received the lens yet, but it should be here sometime early next week. I think the price I paid was reasonable .

I did a search of the archives and read some impressions of the lens but was curious to if there were any more or if anyone had any examples taken with this mythical beast. I suppose if I don’t like it I can always sell it for what I paid for it. It would be gracious of you if anyone had any more info.

Blumine

wfwhitaker
3-Jul-2009, 06:36
At one time I had the third version of this lens. I made some comparison photos on 8x10 chrome film. They're ganged together here as a collage. Can you find the one from the Kern Dagor? http://wfwhitaker.com/tech/collage.jpg

Blumine
3-Jul-2009, 07:05
Let me guess........ The top left picture? Seems to have that contrasty dagor look.

Thank you.

Blumine

Toyon
3-Jul-2009, 07:36
Is this lens related to the legendary Trigor?

wfwhitaker
3-Jul-2009, 07:48
From upper left, clockwise:

14" Kern Dagor
375mm Caltar
16 1/2" RD Artar
14" Commercial Ektar

Yes, the Dagor is more contrasty. But it's not entirely a fair comparison because there are some exposure differences due to older shutters on the other lenses. The images were shot on 8x10 chrome film; the scans were made directly from the film and are unmanipulated. Nevertheless, the differences are more apparent in the original chromes than in the scans. The Kern presented the out-of-focus areas in the background too harshly for my taste. All things considered, the Commercial Ektar or the Caltar suited my way of seeing better. And the investment in the Kern was too much too ignore. Having said that, however, the Kern is a gorgeous lens and for some subjects/styles can't be beat.

Drew Wiley
3-Jul-2009, 10:41
I had a couple of these. The quality of color hue transmission was the best of any
lens I have ever owned, and micro-contrast on b&w film was superb. However, the
level of contrast was just too high for color tranny film outdoors (might be OK with something like Astia). And I absolutely hated the Compur 3 shutter, which had
a distinct buzz vibration to it and no T setting. Finally replaced it with the
single-coated version of the Kern in a Copal shutter. The latest MC is tack sharp
about 2/3 stop down from wide open, so behaves a tiny bit better in this respect
from the single-coat lens, which needs at least a full stop. If I had kept the MC
lenses I think I would have had them remounted in Copal shutters, but that means
even more $. Coverage is so-so on 8x10 - good enough for many applications but
not for strong rise or tilt. Wonderful portrait lens if subject has smooth skin.

Martin Courtenay-Blake
3-Jul-2009, 12:29
I don't know what Kern did to their lenses but they seemed to produce lenses capable of extraordinary performance. In days gone by I owned an Alpa 35mm camera with a 50mm f1.8 Macro Switar which produced truly outstanding images. A photo mag tested the lens and found it out resolved everything then available including M and R series Leitz, Zeiss for the Contax RTS as well as Nikon and Canon lenses. Contrast was extremely high (was sometimes a problem), colour fidelity spot on and transparancies exhibited an almost 3D effect yet incredibly smooth, almost plastic tonality. It was very special...wish I still had. I really regret I didn't shoot mono in those days.

Now where can I get one of these Kern MC Dagor thingies for my 5X4 or 5X7?

Martin

Blumine
3-Jul-2009, 21:29
Great responses, thank you very much. I guess I will play with it for a while, if I like it keep it or get rid it.

I certainly wont lose anything on it.

Blumine

Kirk Fry
3-Jul-2009, 22:21
The 14 inch Commercial Ektar looks pretty good and has more coverage than the Dagor.
I wonder how a 355 G-Claron or Modern Plasmat would look?

KFry

Drew Wiley
4-Jul-2009, 10:19
The G-Claron has signficantly more coverage than the Kern Dagor, is better corrected at significant tilts and especially at close range, which it was specfically
marketed for. The Dagor would have higher contrast due to only four air-glass
interfaces, plus the superb multi-coating. Both are mid-weight lenses, relatively
portable, with #3 shutters. My favorite alternative is the 360 Fuji A which has the
advantage of a #1 shutter, so sharper under certain circumstances due to less
shutter vibration. Similar optical design to G-Claron but a bit less coverage due to
mechanical vignetting of the smaller shutter. The Fuji has a bit more contrast than
the G-Claron, but similar color. The Kern has a tiny bit warmer color rendering;
and the presence of a multi-bladed shutter means better bokeh at wide apertures.
The Fuji A is my preferred lens for landscape and close-up use. It's dramatically
better on 4x5 due to the least vibration, but I use it routinely on 8x10 too. I prefer
the Kern for portrait use of shooting for selective focus. The difference between
single-coat and multi-coat versions I noted above. All these are wonderful lenses,
plus you now have Schneider introducing a lightweight artar design in this general focal length too.

Blumine
7-Jul-2009, 19:38
Well the lens arrived this afternoon and I unpacked it a little while ago. Its beautiful, the glass is perfect, no flaws at all. The only minor flaw is the plastic knob is missing off the shutter release.

I mounted it on my 8x10 and just peered at the ground glass for a moment and it seems very sharp. I won't get a chance to burn any film until the weekend, but I wanna take this thing out and give it a try.

I dont have my calipers handy at the moment, it appears to have a 60mm threading on the front element. Would anyone happene to know if that is correct?

Thank You.

Blumine.

Steve Hamley
7-Jul-2009, 20:06
Blumine,

Point it into the light and let us know about the flare. I'm interested.

Cheers, Steve

Jim Galli
7-Jul-2009, 20:37
I had one for some years. I loved the lens and almost anything I used it for became a keeper. It was the earlier one single coated. Alas, along came an early Schneider Dagor type Symmar of the same length and it functioned so beautifully that I couldn't tell the difference. So since the Dagor was worth much much more than the Symmar it made some sense to part with it. I'm lovin' that Symmar. Uncoated, 1939.

Drew Wiley
7-Jul-2009, 22:39
Steve- when I had one of these MC Kerns it had the least flare of any lens I have
ever owned in any format. Just makes sense - only four air/glass surfaces plus the
superb multi-coating. Of course, it also threw a huge image circle onto 4x5, so it
needed an appropriate shade. But I could point it into the bright sun reflections and
so forth with no ghosting at all. I could pick up detail in bright reflections which I
have been unable to obtain since with any other lens. The single-coated one I now have is about equal to a G-Claron in flare and contrast, quite good indeed, but a slightly different animal. I am utterly confused by comments that these are flare prone lenses; are we actually talking about the same thing? These were dagors
made in relatively limited batches in Switzerland and represented the very last of
this lineage.

Chuck Pere
8-Jul-2009, 06:01
60 mm is the correct size.

Steve Hamley
8-Jul-2009, 17:58
Drew,

I had a 14" Schneider (Kern) Gold Dot Dagor, single coated as well as a 14" Trigor (actually tried two different Trigors and owned one of them).

All three suffered from bad general flare pointed into the light unless the glass was very well shaded where other lens designs did not, including other Dagors of various vintages. I don't remember a particular problem with the iris ghost.

They ended up getting sold since they were worth a lot of money and I had other options in the 14" focal length that had more coverage and were less flare prone. I'm currently using a superb 360mm f:9 WA Apo Nikkor for 8x20 and maybe 12x20, or an old 14" Berlin Dagor with immense coverage I bought from Eddie. Other options would be the unappreciated 360mm Caltar II-N (especially for color), or a good clean Commercial Ektar.

I'm a big Dagor fan but the GDD and Trigors had a much too high cost/performance ratio.

Cheers, Steve

BILL3075
17-Feb-2010, 20:09
Greetings,

I have this lens (Schneider Corp of America), but cannot get a 60mm filter to screw onto the front threads. The filter -either a B+W or Heliopan-- seems to be just a wee bit too small.

Any ideas or suggestions?

Thanks in advance,

BILL

Steve Hamley
21-Feb-2010, 03:39
Probably uses a series push-on filter.

Cheers, Steve

Blumine
21-Feb-2010, 16:57
I have a 60mm adapter ring as well as a 67mm BW filter on mine and both fit perfectly. Are you sure the threads haven't been damaged in someway?

Blumine

Drew Wiley
21-Feb-2010, 17:13
What I do with these is take an unwanted 67mm filter and remove the glass, then
line inside perimeter of the remaining ring with a little silicone weatherstrip shim. It makes a perfect slip-on adapter for regular 67mm filters.

Michael Graves
8-Nov-2013, 05:55
From upper left, clockwise:

14" Kern Dagor
375mm Caltar
16 1/2" RD Artar
14" Commercial Ektar

Yes, the Dagor is more contrasty. But it's not entirely a fair comparison because there are some exposure differences due to older shutters on the other lenses. The images were shot on 8x10 chrome film; the scans were made directly from the film and are unmanipulated. Nevertheless, the differences are more apparent in the original chromes than in the scans. The Kern presented the out-of-focus areas in the background too harshly for my taste. All things considered, the Commercial Ektar or the Caltar suited my way of seeing better. And the investment in the Kern was too much too ignore. Having said that, however, the Kern is a gorgeous lens and for some subjects/styles can't be beat.

I just took my 375mm Caltar off the market.

Drew Wiley
8-Nov-2013, 09:35
Bill - what I did for attaching filters was take an unwanted 67mm filter and bust the glass of out it, then carefully lined the internal diameter ring with a bit of silicone gasket material (I used a special 3M smoke-gasket bulb material, which is extremely durable, and cut a strip from that with a mat knife). This then just slips firmly
and precisely over the outside of the barrel, and still provides a 67mm thread for filters that size. It works great. But I don't use my Dagor very often in the field.
I find the 360A Fujinon to be far more for outdoor subjects, though for portrait work, I still prefer the dagor.

Drew Wiley
8-Nov-2013, 09:56
.. I meant to say, the Fuji A is more versatile. This is going to be a bad day for typos for me... my fingers and toes are starting to feel the barometric change as
a storm from slowly approaches. Fortunately, tomorrow's forecast looks good for walking the 8x10. The Fuji is not only smaller, with a small shutter, but is much
better around the edges of the circle when very strong tilts or swings are employed, and far far better once you approach macro type situations. But for general
8x10 usage, it's pretty hard to tell the results of the two lenses apart when they're both well stopped down, either in black and white or color applications. Where
the Dagor finds its niche is in those semi-selective focus situations, relatively wide open, where you want your primary subject looking sharp, but not sharp in a
cold analytic sense. I found it a wonderful look for studio portraiture in front of backdrops for example, esp when carefully printed. But I don't do much of that kind
of work anymore.