210mm Dagor vs. 215mm Acuton/Caltar-S

**William Mortensen** · 3-Feb-2006, 19:27

I recently fell into one of those bizarre package deals that included a lens I wanted, plus a bunch of other junk, including what was described as "some old beater 4x5 lens." Well, I got it home and when I checked out the old beater lens (I hadn't even opened its box), it was a Gold Rim Dagor 210mm f/6.8, with very clean coated glass in a #3 Acme shutter.

One of my favorite 8x10 lenses for many years has been my 215mm f/4.8 Acuton, and its sister, an identical (but for the name) 215mm f/4.8 Caltar-S. But, hey, this is a Gold Rim Dagor...

Yes, I know, I have to test them side by side, and I will in about a week. But I'm curious... according to conventional wisdom, which should be superior for 8x10, especially in terms of sharpness at the corners and useful coverage?

**William Mortensen** · 3-Feb-2006, 19:29

Oh, and does anyone know how I can change my posting name back to Mark Sawyer? (I think my high school students changed it after an "Adams vs. Mortensen" lecture...)

**Jim Galli** · 3-Feb-2006, 20:38

Mark, a '76 Cutlass with 300,000 miles will get you to town and back, but it's so much more fun in a '55 'bird.

I think you'll find the Dagor is indeed far superior in coverage and contrast. The reasons one is $122 on Ebay and the other is $685 are not all romance. Part romance unargueably, but not all.

So what else was in that box??

**William Mortensen** · 4-Feb-2006, 10:41

"So what else was in that box?"

Well, Jim, the lens I wanted was one I think you'd appreciate, a 12" Velostigmat with the adjustable soft focus. It's in a studio shutter, and the barrel and shutter are bare brass rather than the usual black enamel.

Also a like-new Omega View 45E monorail I'll probably never use, with a 90mm Acugon, compendium shade, many 4x5 filmholders, and quite a few 4x5 odds & ends. Also a Seneca Improved 8x10 which needs a bit of work, a Conley 8x10 that needs a LOT of work and a bellows, a few decent 8x10 wooden filmholders, a packard shutter,and a few other minor oddities. All for $400. Couldn't help myself...

"I think you'll find the Dagor is indeed far superior in coverage and contrast. The reasons one is $122 on Ebay and the other is $685 are not all romance. Part romance unargueably, but not all."

I dunno... The Acuton/Caltar is very sharp all the way to the corners, and is listed as having a 307mm image circle. (Experience lets me guess it actually has about 340mm of useable coverage). The Dagor is listed as having 294mm coverage, but who knows what it really has... I've always felt the Acuton/Caltar was a very under-rated lens. I'll make a board for the Dagor this afternoon, and test them later this week, hopefully.

**Dan Fromm** · 4-Feb-2006, 10:42

Mark, don't scorn your little 90 Acugon. Even though it was designed and made in Rochester, for all intents and purposes it is a 90/8 Super Angulon.

**Jim Galli** · 4-Feb-2006, 11:33

I've noted elsewhere that most of the famous Hollywood glamour shots could have been accomplished with a 12" Velostigmat Series II. That's a fine old lens. Have fun.

**William Mortensen** · 4-Feb-2006, 12:28

"Mark, don't scorn your little 90 [Ilex] Acugon. Even though it was designed and made in Rochester, for all intents and purposes it is a 90/8 Super Angulon."

Agreed, though I just don't do much (well, any) 4x5. I suspect I'll put together another loaner kit for someone starting out in lf. My experience is that most Ilex/early Caltar lenses are very good and very under-priced. Wollensak Velostigmats are also very nice for older uncoated optics, but I think people are starting to appreciate them, and the prices are inching upwards.

**William Mortensen** · 19-Apr-2006, 16:26

Epilogue: Well, I finally got to use the 215 Acuton and 210 Gold Rim Dagor side by side. As background, I also have a pretty nice older uncoated Dagor of unknown age, and it's pretty much equivalent to the Acuton in terms of contrast, coverage, and sharpness, except that the older Dagor gets slightly less resolution at the corners.

The Gold Rim Dagor is surprisingly contrastier than the Acuton, (both are single coated). It's very sharp, and holds its sharpness very well all the way into the corners. But then, so does the Acuton. Both have very nice tonality (this is subjective), which is a bit of a surprise, as the Dagor is more contrasty. My experience is that the transition between tones gets a little harsher with higher contrast lenses (like my 450mm Nikkor-M, which I don't particularly like for just that reason), but the Dagor does smoothness of tone and higher contrast both quite well.

I like the new Dagor a lot, but I like the Acuton a lot too. The Acuton is definitely the most bang for the buck. But I have to admit, there was also something about putting a lens on the camera and mumbling to myself, "mmmmmmm... Gold Rim Dagor!"