Dagor's/Artars vs Modern Lenses using color film

[Daniel Stone]

hey all,

I've been wondering lately, having seen some 12" and 14" Dagor's(of all flavors in both FL's, gold rim, gold dot, Kern etc...) come up lately, and got me thinking about how they'd work with color film?
As of late, color film seems to have been wandering into my 4x5 and 8x10 holders . Having seen what Dagors and Artars(of which I have a 24" Red Dot which I love to bits) can do 1st hand after working with M+P last summer, however, I didn't see any color work shot with these lenses.

Since there are so many people on this forum, does anyone have any experience with using Dagor's(coated or uncoated) with color film?

I currently have a Fujinon 300mm, but have been looking for a wider FL for those times when it calls for it, so a 8.25" Dagor might fit the bill, this is for 8x10 primarily btw.

thanks in advance!

-Dan

EDIT: this is primarily more of a TECHNICAL question, not really in terms of LP's/mm, but more of overall "feel" to a photograph, along with coverage ratings for different FL's of Dagors and Artars

[E. von Hoegh]

An Artar is an apochromatically corrected lens. Color results are beautiful in the coated versions. A Dagor has fewer air to glass surfaces, four as opposed to eight, and if coated is as nice a lens as you will find. You haven't seen a transparency until you've seen one made with a Kern multicoated Dagor.

Either lens, if uncoated, can have some problems with color casts in shadows. Best to use a compendium lens shade.

Artars cover about 45 degrees, Dagors 70. Some 8 1/4" Dagors just miss the corners on 8x10.

[Steve Hamley]

Artars are almost indistinguishable from modern lenses with color. Dagors for color are a refreshing change from the overly saturated, edgy look of some modern lenses, especially with high-saturation film like Velvia.

The attached jpeg was shot on 8x10 E100G (I think) using a 12" Gold Dot Dagor. While I'm not sure you can tell much from a jpeg, it is what it is. And pros shot color for years with Dagors so there certainly isn't anything wrong with it.

Cheers, Steve

[Drew Wiley]

My experience with dagors is limited to the later Swiss Kern versions of 355mm, of
which I've owned several. They've become something of an overpriced cult lens in
my opinion. The multicoated version in Compur shutter had the highest contrast and
best color transmission of any camera lens I've ever owned, in any format. So I'd
have to say it is even better in this respect than current lenses, and that's exactly
what one would expect with only four air/glass interfaces and fully modern coatings.
But that can present a problem in itself because it raises the contrast of many
otherwise typical transparencies exposures to any almost unprintable level. In other
words, it sometimes "too good" for this kind of application. Might be wonderful for
raising the saturation of color neg films, however. The other thing is that I outright
hated the Compur shutter. It had a distinct buzz to it and didn't have any time setting. It was multi-bladed, which was nice for out-of-focus control in portraits etc.
So what I use now is the next generation back - the single-coated Kern in Copal
3S shutter, which is going to be a little more gentle on contrast and complexion issues. It an excellent field and landscape lens, though I generally prefer a 360 Fuji A for this kind of work per se. The color balance of these Kern lenses is a tad warmer than most Fuji, Schneider, and Nikon lenses, but not enough to require any
supplementary filtration.

[Dan Fromm]

I have no Dagors, have a number of Boyer Beryls (same thing), all coated and haze-free. They're just fine with E100G.

Also one each f/6.8 and f/14 Berthiot Perigraphes, both Dagor types, both coated. The f/6.8 isn't as sharp as my Beryl of the same focal length, the f/14 is just wonderful. Both are fine with color.

No Artars, but a number of dialyte type Apo-Nikkors and a couple of Apo-Ronars. Same story.

As has already been pointed out, if you don't want extreme coverage you can't go wrong with any of these lenses.

As has not been pointed out yet in this discussion, getting a Dagor in barrel and then putting it in shutter may not make economic sense.

Re the color casts in shadows that E. von H. mentioned, these are not due to the lens, they're due to the shadow.

Roses are red,
shadows are blue

I have, somewhere, a Kodachrome of a spectacularly blue alligator. The beast was in deep deep shadow.

Roses are red,
Gators are blue.

[E. von Hoegh]

The color casts I observed were green, when there was a lot of green in the scene, blue when alot of sky, and nonexistant when there was no color predominant in the scene. This was in comparing an uncoated 6" Dagor with a single coated Plasmat. It was very slight; you had to be looking for it.

[Steve Hamley]

A lot of color tansparency film can exhibit color casts in the shadows, especially if underexposed a little. E100G seems purple-ish, V100 seems bluish, and V50 bluish but maybe a bit more neutral.

Also some uncoated lenses can flare color into the shadows. The more open shadows of uncoated lenses Ansel Adams mentions or general flare will add a little of the predominant color, or nearby color, to the shadows. It can be a good, bad, or not observable.

But shooting Velvia or E100G with an uncoated lens is at least intriguing. It's an interesting look when it works - which is most of the time.

Cheers, Steve

[Ole Tjugen]

Uncoated lenses and colour film can work very well indeed.

I have only one Dagor and no Artars, nor do i particularly desire to get more of them, but I do have similar lenses under other names.

Here's one from a Zeiss Doppel-Amatar - a "reverse Dagor". Uncoated.

[Drew Wiley]

The dagor design was around for many decades. Like I already noted, the very last of
them, represented by the 14-inch MC Kern, had the purest color transmission and least
flare of any lens I have ever used, in any format. But the multicoating also subtly improved overall color accuracy compared to my current single-coated example (which
is still as good in this respect as any typical fully modern plastmat). Where I found these later dagors to be a little deficient in comparsion with the newer plasmats of
comparable focal length pertains to correction at severe tilts or swings, as well as
as very closeup work. Someone at Schneider told me that the dagors were discontinued because the 355 G-Claron was so much better at all the objective parameters: tangential MTF, coverage, close-range etc. But subjective characteristics
are another story, and the dagor is still a marvelous option among the pack.

[Lynn Jones]

Hi guys,

I've used dozens of coated modern and semi-modern lenses (1930's or so) with no problem, color and b/w. I've also used some non-coated lenses, and if truly un-coated they tend to be pretty flat unless with chrome. However, some old un-coated lenses which which were "self coated" worked quite well, regardless. I often used a 7 inch rapid rectilinear many time from an old 1903 sheet/plate camera on with a 4x5 view camera and sometimes with 120/220 roll holder. I loved that old lens with b/w, col neg, and chrome. I can't imagine what ever happened to it.

Lynn