PDA

View Full Version : Pardon me...



Dan95
20-Feb-2012, 01:49
Pardon my ignorance.. But what's with all the fuss concerning Goerz lenses ? :confused:

Dan95
20-Feb-2012, 01:59
Thinking of starting with a Red Dot Artar 8 1/4 f9

Leigh
20-Feb-2012, 02:12
They're supposed to be pretty good, although they're a bit old by now.

There are two major types commonly encountered:

The Red Dot Artar is a process lens, optimized for close work on process cameras.
The Gold Dot Dagor is a general-purpose lens.
I saw a Blue Dot Trigor offered for sale. I know nothing about that series.

There is also a "Gold Rim" Dagor, sometimes called a "Golden" Dagor, which was
just a marketing gimmick on their standard lens line as far as I can tell.

- Leigh

Dan95
20-Feb-2012, 02:25
Golden Dagor ? Looks like polished brass to me...

Drew Bedo
20-Feb-2012, 07:40
It is polished brass.

Drew Bedo
20-Feb-2012, 07:42
It is polished brass. There was an article on these lenses in View Camera Magazine in the early 2Ks , but I can't find it . . .anyone?

Louis Pacilla
20-Feb-2012, 10:58
My couple of Gold rim lenses in the 78.xxx run are gold anodized aluminum not polished brass.

Not to be confused with the gold dot that was also factory correct and may have overlapped( Gold Dot/Gold rim).

I would stay away from a Dagor with a lacquered Brass rim If it's being presented as "Gold Rim" and priced higher than a normal nice Dagor.

I'm not 100% sure but don't think the lacquered brass rim was Goerz America factory practice.

Mark Sawyer
20-Feb-2012, 11:09
You'll find the same fuss over Voigtlander lenses, Cooke lenses, Dallmeyer lenses... And even more fuss over Pinkham and Smith lenses, Karl Struss lenses...

Frank Petronio
20-Feb-2012, 12:17
If you're just starting then treat yourself to a 150-180-210 (for 4x5) Rodenstock or Schneider or Fuji or Nikkor symetrical (Symmar, Sironar, Calumet Caltar, etc.) made since 1980 and mounted in a standard Copal shutter. As long as they are in reasonable condition they will be fine performers and they are plentiful, easily found for less than $300 in excellent condition. Even if you get other fancier lenses, you can use these the rest of your photo career.

Drew Bedo
20-Feb-2012, 13:05
Hello Dan,


I have a 210mm/5.6 Schneider Symar available at $200. Its the convertable mode: lremoving the rear cell makes it a 300mm f12. It was last CLA'd in 2010. If you need this lens, contact me via my website.

Dan Fromm
20-Feb-2012, 14:11
Dan, people make fusses about Dagors in general, including very old ones. There are several reasons for this:

Dagors have six elements in two groups, i.e., only four air-glass interfaces. This makes all of them, including pre-WW II uncoated ones, quite resistant to flare.

Many people think that Dagors have large coverage; 85 degrees is often claimed. There's some disagreement about this; the minimalist position is exemplified by my friend Eric Beltrando, who wrote a ray-tracing program that he uses to calculate lenses performance. He takes prescriptions from patents and, in the case of Boyer lenses, as much of Boyer's archives as he has. He finds that Dagors cover 60 degrees. Visit www.dioptrique.info to learn more about his ideas. He's not anti-Goerz, gets much the same results for Boyer Beryls, which are Dagors in all but name. Interestingly, his calculations for the 1965 Beryl recalculation claim 85 degrees, but he's told me pointedly not to expect more than 70 degrees and, for stringent applications, 55 degrees from my Beryls.

Part of the cause of disagreements about Dagors' coverage seems to be a change in standards over time. My pet example is shrinking coverage claims for Berthiot's Series VIIb (f/6.8) Perigraphes. These are also Dagors in all but name. In 1912, Berthiot claimed the lens covered 95 degrees. In the mid-'30s, 85 degrees. Around 1950, 65 degrees.

Why non-Goerz dagors don't have Goerz Dagors' cachet is an interesting question too. Could be brand-name snobbery. This is not to say than Dagors, Goerz and non-Goerz, aren't quite satisfactory lenses. They are. But there are modern lenses with at least as good central image quality and larger coverage.

Why Artars, which seem to be no better, focal length for focal length, than Apo-Ronars and dialyte type Apo-Nikkors are so prized is also a little puzzling. All are reported to be very good at all distances.

Yours for solidarity among Dans,

Dan

Alan Gales
20-Feb-2012, 14:34
Older lenses like Goertz are less contrasty and give a different "look" that some prefer, especially those who shoot black and white. Others prefer more modern lenses.

Many photographers use a mixture of both old and modern lenses to give them more choices.

John Kasaian
20-Feb-2012, 15:16
Goerz made excellent lenses, but even the best lens in the world is at the mercy of the clown with a grip on the cable release. ;)
Goerz, Wollensak, Kodak and now Nikkor LF lenses are History, but that shouldn't make them any more (or less) desireable. When someone asks for recommendations for a first lens there is no reason to exclude the old school glass. Up until the current glut of 210mms hit the market, excellent glass from defunct optics factories often went for lower prices among the used examples available and so were excellent values for those of use who can't drop $4 grand on a new lens.

Steve Hamley
20-Feb-2012, 16:34
You might as well ask what's the fuss about a '57 Chevy or a vintage Ford Thunderbird. Goerz made other lenses too, but Artars and Dagors are the ones most mentioned.

Goerz lenses were just good quality lenses that had a lot to be desired, at least at the time, and even today for certain uses. But Frank P is right that the best bang for the buck is a good used current or one-generation old Schneider, Fuji, Rodenstock, or Nikkor.

Goerz Artar lenses when factory mounted in shutter were optimized for general photography, and they make fine, lighter weight slightly long to long focal length lenses for a given format, say 8-1/4" (210mm) and up for 4x5. They sharply cover at infinity a circle about equal to their focal length. They don't have, and were not intended to have, the coverage of some other designs, but then they don't throw a lot of extra light around in the camera either. And if you want a 30" or longer lens that will fit in a shutter for your 8x10 up, an Goerz Artar is probably the #1 choice of a tiny field of candidates.

Regarding Dagors, it's hard to come up with alternatives to the Dagor's small size, reasonably bright maximum aperture, and 80 degree coverage (more if contact printing). You can find lots of lenses with two of those attributes, but all three "thin the herd" a LOT. The original 80-degree Fujinon-W is about as close as it gets. A 9-1/2" Dagor in a #1 shutter is tiny compared to a modern 240mm f:5.6 lens in a Copal 3, and is about the same size as f:9 process lenses and brighter (easier to compose in dim light). Some (or all) of them do shift focus upon stopping down to some degree (Kingslake mentions it) and it's best to focus stopped down as close to taking aperture if you can see to focus well. Which is not a bad habit to develop with any lens and particularly if you like vintage lenses. Kingslake remarked in a way that questioned the Dagor's popularity given the focus shift, but that popularity continues even today.

Just a personal opinion, if Rodenstock had made the Apo-Sironar-S (or Fuji the CM-W line) f:6.8, Dagors would be worthless!

Cheers, Steve

Louis Pacilla
20-Feb-2012, 17:10
My couple of Gold rim lenses in the 78.xxx run are gold anodized aluminum not polished brass.

Not to be confused with the gold dot that was also factory correct and may have overlapped( Gold Dot/Gold rim).

I would stay away from a Dagor with a lacquered Brass rim If it's being presented as "Gold Rim" and priced higher than a normal nice Dagor.

I'm not 100% sure but don't think the lacquered brass rim was Goerz America factory practice.

I apologies for a confusing reply to the OP. I meant this as an observation (right or wrong and probably wrong)to this thread

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87082-Goerz-Berlin-never-made-quot-gold-quot-lenses-did-they

Dan95
21-Feb-2012, 03:05
Dang, I was watching this one on the bay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Goerz-RED-DOT-Apo-Artar-8-1-4-IN-F-9-/300664132617?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4600fa9409#ht_500wt_1054

But It ended while I was at school!

cosmicexplosion
21-Feb-2012, 06:11
Paul strand used a dagor 300mm for decades as his only lens.

your best bet besides seeing pics live, is doing a google for dagor under images.

you will notice that they render tones in a smooth way.

i like them as they hint at soft focus but give a visceral quality and can turn a mundane scene into a magical one. (sound unrealistic)see:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?23652-Old-Goerz-Dagor-lens

the woman at desk

that is one of the pics that turned me on to dagors when i first heard about them, there were a few others, but i cant find them, but i did the same google search.

i just saw something different, i could also be a mix of the LF camera, which is also a different look to what i had been used to.

i think lens's deserve there credit or following, the p+s to me looks the best soft lens, although others are also great. based on jim galli's train and car pics. though any port in a storm right.

often though its often only other photographers who will really care, or your own artistic vision.

so i will back frank wise advice.

and remember, you have been given wise advice, act on your own peril.

i will give my advice having spent thousands on dagors before i even had a camera.

buy cheap lens's

and spend your money on film.

when your good with what you got, some one will sell you a better lens.

E. von Hoegh
21-Feb-2012, 10:24
Dang, I was watching this one on the bay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Goerz-RED-DOT-Apo-Artar-8-1-4-IN-F-9-/300664132617?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4600fa9409#ht_500wt_1054

But It ended while I was at school! Do you realise that that lens will just barely cover 4x5, with zero movements? Artars are process lenses, the large image circle often quoted is at 1:1 not infinity

For a starter lens, you are best off getting an inexpensive used Plasmat, as has been mentioned.

Mark Sawyer
21-Feb-2012, 10:46
For a starter lens, you are best off getting an inexpensive used Plasmat, as has been mentioned.

The Plasmat is also called the "air-spaced Dagor" in the old literature. It's just a Dagor with a cemented surface in each cell separated, which gives the designer four more surfaces to play with. In pre-coating days, that was a lot of interior air-glass surfaces, (6 total), and the uncoated Plasmats were rather soft on contrast and very flare-prone. It's not an issue with coated versions. I suppose if you wanted the highest contrast possible in a well-corrected lens, a multi-coated Dagor would be a good candidate.

E. von Hoegh
21-Feb-2012, 12:18
The Plasmat is also called the "air-spaced Dagor" in the old literature. It's just a Dagor with a cemented surface in each cell separated, which gives the designer four more surfaces to play with. In pre-coating days, that was a lot of interior air-glass surfaces, (6 total), and the uncoated Plasmats were rather soft on contrast and very flare-prone. It's not an issue with coated versions. I suppose if you wanted the highest contrast possible in a well-corrected lens, a multi-coated Dagor would be a good candidate. The airspaced Dagor also reduced production costs.
And yes, a multicoated Dagor is the ultimate for contrast. :)

Leigh
21-Feb-2012, 13:35
Mr. von Hoegh,

According to Kingslake, the "Double Anastigmat Goerz" lens (later named the DAGOR)
was invented by the German designer van Höegh in 1892.

Any relation?

You seem well-versed in this subject area.

Thanks.

- Leigh

Richard Rankin
21-Feb-2012, 15:00
If someone wants to try one out, I have a pre-1900 one, I believe, that I'm happy to loan out.
Serie III No 2 f=180mm Doppel Anastigmat f7.7. C.P. Goerz Berlin

Richard

Jim Galli
21-Feb-2012, 16:00
Pardon my ignorance.. But what's with all the fuss concerning Goerz lenses ? :confused:

The whole nonsense is a conspiracy started by people who wanted the prices to stay low on Voigtländer lenses. A diversion tactic if you will. It doesn't seem to be working though.

TheDeardorffGuy
21-Feb-2012, 16:38
Thirty years ago it seemed that we all knew that the Gold Dot and Gold rim Dagors were better centered when they were glued together. Some of you remember when I recemented lenses. I specialized in Turner Reich, Protars and Dagors. Turners needed the most help and still do. But the dagors were generally well centered as built from the begining. In the era of Gold Dot and Rim were they better? A bit. I could mount one up on my bench and give it a spin. The projected cross hair reticle just did not move. A non GD or GR moved a very little bit. Does this affect the print? Heck no, If you have an old Dagor make images with it and use it. Quit worrying and use it!

Drew Wiley
21-Feb-2012, 16:47
The asking prices you run into are often ridiculously inflated based on the cult reputation of the lens and don't necessarily indicate what a particular lens typically sells for to an actual user. The very last rendition of the Dagor was multicoated and probably had the least flare and best hue rendition of any camera lens ever made, but otherwise had few if any advantages over modern plastmats. The coverage was modest, the tangential correction and closeup performance so-so. But dagors do give their own kind of look and it can be very pleasing for certain subjects. I still shoot one from time to time. Goerz was the
leading American mfg, and then the last of the series were branded to Schneider, though
actually mfg by Kern of Switzerland.