Hello,
I am looking at a gold dot dagor (80's version) I take mostly portriats, but will be doing a project on horses this year and next.
I am not interested in specs and facts and figures and this and that. I am interested in pictures that people can post of people who have shot with this lens.
Thank you for any images you may have you can share.
Thank you, Neil.
Neil,
It would be helpful if you said what focal length and aperture the lens you are considering has.
Are you looking for a lens that is tack sharp and shows every hair and detail? I suspect you are. Or do you want a lens that has a bit of softness and romance?
Search the lens on flickr.
300-400mmOriginally Posted by AtlantaTerry
an image will give you a reference point for softness/sharpness look
f
FWIW........and you can tell what about sharpness etc. from a low res web image?
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
You're not going to learn a thing looking at images on your monitor, you need to see silver prints made with the lens.
The only 80s production Gold Dot was the 355, that's a sought after lens. You can buy one, try it, and easily resell it if you don't like it
One man's Mede is another man's Persian.
Can anyone post just one or two pictures of a human shot with this lens that is all I am looking for.... I tried flicker and there are some but not specific info about the lens.
I'd agree that looking at web images is largely a waste of time if you really want to understand the subtleties of this lens. But just going out and "buying one" isn't
very realistic either, because they're scarce - an overpriced cult lens at this point in history. I've done portrait work with one. The 355 Kern multicoat has the least flare and highest contrast of ANY camera lens of any format I've ever used. Makes sense, with only four air/glass interfaces, and all these MC. So you could get remarkable microcontrast with it and do a beautiful job if you didn't print contrasty. With color film, the contrast was often just too much. And I positively hated the Compur 3 shutter, which had no time function and had quite a buzz to it too. So I eventually switched over to the previous single-coated Kern, which has a 3 Compur S instead, and is a little less harsh if someone has a less than ideal complexion. These dagors are hard-sharp lenses in the modern sense, but with a little more "roundness" to the edges than typical modern plasmats. So they do have a special look sometimes, but are not particularly good lenses for deliberate
out-of-focus "bokeh" effects. It's a nice lens, but hardly worth the kind of prices people are asking for them nowadays.
Neil, I think the point that is trying to be made is that you will not be able to judge much about the lens when you see a photo made with it here because it is going to be a scanned, fairly small sized, compressed, low resolution JPG.
Images from a great lens and an average lens when viewed here will look fairly similar because the fine details will be lost in translation. It is those fine details that you pay for in the lens you seek.
Since you are in New York City, that is a huge advantage. You might look into renting the lens for a week or so. Then when you have actually used it and made prints will you know if it is right for you.
See this thread
for some images that might be useful.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks