Lousy Dagor

[Jon Wilson]

There is hope out there for those who wish to own a dagor without mortgaging the house. I was lucky to pick up a 7" (180mm) in a volute shutter, without a flange, from Jim G. for a song. ebay item #7503788240. It was advertised as having coverage up to 5x7 (which it does) and that representation is consistent with the various goerz dagor charts which can been found this forum's threads. Having located a flange from another lens (kodak 152mm in a supermatic shutter, for those who have a Volute shutter without a flange), I am itching to try it out...but on my 4x5 and 5x7.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think someone's just looking to buy a set of nice Dagors and is trying to drive the price down.

[Jim Galli]

Personally I think the Mona Lisa sucks. But it doesn't really matter what I think because the vote was in long before I formed my opinion. A 300 f9 Nikkor is sharper at 25 degrees from center than a Dagor. Fair enough. Go out to 80 degrees and see what the Nikkor has. No picture at all, OK, 60 degrees then, OK, mush, 40 degrees? That's about where it's breaking even with the Dagor that keeps right on going out to 80 plus degrees. I don't use my Dagor on 4X5 or my Nikkor on 7X17. For that matter I haven't used the 305 Dagor on 8X10. But I have used it successfully on 8X20.

[Henry Suryo]

I can't say that there aren't any lemon Dagors, but I have owned and tested many Dagors and have not found any that performed poorly. Some perfomed noticeably better than others, but they all have that special look that I and, I suspect, others have grown to love. I think Dagors are best used stopped down, where the image becomes clinically sharp. It's an image of high resolution, not so much acutance, and it retains much of the smooth look. I love it, for black and white, the tonality is just exquisite. I think they're my favorite lenses and almost always prefer to use them whenever I have a choice. Just my experience, that's all.

[landarc]

Yep my opinion counts for diddly but I did want to get some vibrant feedback from the dagor lovers club. I know many of you love them but I simply do not, ok. You can say whatever you want about the lens and its history but the optical facts are the design is old and outdated and performs like it. if you like the look then fine thats your boat, but I prefer a more modern lens design. ok? Like I said if I want the softer look I'll use a really old Rapid Rectilinear lens and shoot it wide open. Now what else can I say to fire up the crowds? people really have it bad for the dagor! its quite amusing.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

landarc,

This wouldn't by any chance be a "BERLIN DAGOR" would it? If it is, that would explain a lot. I'm referring specifically to a lens labeled "BERLIN DAGOR", not "C.P. Goerz Berlin" or "GOERZ DAGOR" or "C.P. GOERZ AM. OPT. INC." or "GOERZ OPTICAL INC.".

As Sandy mentioned, Dagors were made for nearly a century by several different companies in three countries on two continents. It is entirely possible a dud might have slipped through somebody's quality control during all those years. It's also possible your lens, that might be pushing 100 years old, is no longer performing as well as the day it left the factory. It could have been damaged at some point, or perhaps improperly re-mounted in a new barrel or shutter.

So, before we completely write off 100 years worth of Dagors as poor performers based on a sample size of one, tell us more about your particular lens. It would really help to know who made it and when. Please either post a photo or tell us exactly what it says on the lens. Please include everything that's engraved on the lens, including the serial number. Also, do both the front and rear cells have serial numbers? If so, do they match?

I don't doubt for a second that your lens is every bit as bad as you claim. However, I have also seen many Dagors that were capable of excellent performance. Maybe not quite as sharp and contrasty as the latest state-of-the-art multicoated APO something-or-other, but certainly much better than what you described. I've also seen a few Dagors that were total dogs (mostly "BERLIN DAGOR"s and one or two older lenses with poor centering or improper spacing).

Thanks,
Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Yep my opinion counts for diddly

P.S. I am not challenging your opinion. You are certainly entitled to it. I do take issue with making a sweeping generalization based on a single sample.

FWIW, within the last five years I purchased a brand new, state-of-the-art, computer designed lens from one of today's leading large format lens manufacturers that was a very poor performer. Based on the poor performance, it was obvious that this lens was defective. When I returned it for a refund, I was issued an aplogy and told the lens I got should have not passed quality control and never should have left the factory. I have used many lenses from this manufacturer over the years, including several that I currently own (including the replacement for the "lemon"). Other than this one particular exception, they have all been routinely excellent, including one of my all time favorite lenses. I'm certainly glad I didn't let one bad example cause me to abondon the entire brand. It just goes to show you, even in modern times with all of our advanced technology, we're still far from perfect.

P.P.S. I don't currently own any Dagors, but have in the past. I do own a few Artars, but I would never consider myself part of any Goerz or Dagor "cult".

Kerry

[landarc]

It was a berlin dagor. Maybe I should sample more but its just not worth it to me. I think the lens performed like a dagor should, but have not used others. I take a much more technical approach to the lens design because I grew up around optical design and engineering people. I know optically the lens performs poorly compared to modern wide angles. I never got one because all I heard was how lousy they were from lens designers. I did get persuaded to try one due to all the photograhpers who urged me to do so. I have to forget some of the tech babble and just try a lens. I try to balance both sides - the technical vs the photographers point of view. I am not biased either way and this is why I gave the lens a try.

I have tried it. I did not like it. I do feel the lens had its own image quality. Soft but pleasing to alot of people. Personally I would be much happier shooting with a modern g-claron or apo-gerogon. Less expensive and certainly fine and sharp and in the same ballpark being symmetrical lenses and wide covering. Of course they are not the same design (exepting the early clarons) but they are easier to compare than a f9 nikkor and a dagor. or course those don't compare!

[Jim Galli]

Sounds to me like you had your conclusion before you made your one picture with one Dagor. Does your last name start with a Z and end in an S? I don't consider myself a cult person. I have more Protar's and G-Clarons than Dagor's. However, my 2 best performers of the entire bunch may well both be Dagor's.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

It was a berlin dagor.

As I suspected. The "BERLIN DAGOR"s have a well deserved reputation for being hideously awful performers. They were assembled from old surplus glass by Burke & James in the years following WWII. The glass was of questionable origin and dubious quality and the assembly was equally suspect with mis-matched, poorly centered and improperly spaced elements.

Rather than repeat what is considered common knowledge, I'll refer you to the thread titled Bad Dagors? in rec.photo.equipment.large-format.

The corners are like mush and the entire image is very soft.

This is EXACTLY what I would suspect from a 7" "BERLIN DAGOR" shot on 8x10.

Maybe I should sample more but its just not worth it to me.

Since you went to the effort of testing one, it would have been nice if it had been a real Dagor and not some reject poorly assembled by Burke & James.

I know optically the lens performs poorly compared to modern wide angles.

The standad Dagor is not a wide angle design. It covers about 65 degrees at f22. Coverage can be pushed to about 85 - 87 degrees by stopping down to f45. Of course, even the best modern wide angle won't perform at it's best stopped down this far due to diffraction. At what aperture did you conduct your tests? A more approrriate comparison would be between a Dagor and a modern plasmat (which is, after all, an air-spaced deriviative of the Dagor), both shot at f22. Of course, neither will cover 8x10 in this test, but why penalize the Dagor for something even it's modern decendant can't do?

I'm not trying to make a Dagor convert out of you. As I mentioned, I don't own any Dagors myself. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your experiment (particularly the sample you selected for your testing) that lead to conclusions that deviate significantly form the the experience of others who use, and like, these lenses. Dagors certainly aren't for everybody, and the cult-driven prices have gotten ridiculous (ditto for Biogon and APO Lanthar prices), but there are valid reasons why some photographers like these lenses. To discount those reasons based on one poorly chosen sample unjustly trivializes the opinions of those photographers.

I personally test every lens I get and keep the ones that best meet my needs (which have evolved over time). I really don't care what name is on my lens, as long as it meets my needs and produces images that satisy me. That means I have lenses with the names Congo, Kyvytar and Germinar in my camera bag right next to my better known Super Symmars and APO Sironars. In the end, I know what each is capable of, and they all do what they asked. I am the limiting factor in my work, not them. I suspect this would still be true even if one of them was named Dagor (and long as it wasn't named "BERLIN DAGOR").

Kerry