Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

C.P. Goerz Dagor lens on plate camera, interesting?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:05 pm    Post subject: C.P. Goerz Dagor lens on plate camera, interesting? Reply with quote
I came across this camera today:



The camera does not interest me in the least, given its shape. But the lens clearly reads "C.P. Goerz Dagor". Is this interesting in any way? I'm not really into Goerz lenses, so I thought it was a good idea to ask here first before I make a mistake Wink


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Goertz Dagors are legendary amongst the large format community. I can't read the focal length or aperture of the lens, but typically the Dagor formula provides excellent sharpness and allows for quite a bit of standard movement.

That old lens doesn't look coated, but I'll bet it's still a great optic.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your reply! Yes, that's the general consensus on the forums, but what I'm unsure of is if the Dagor is great at all focal lenghts, or only a few. I don't mind uncoated lenses though (in fact I love those older ones).


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a few short focal length Dagor in barrel mounts and these perfom very well.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm with my 20/20 vision eyes I reckon it could be a 13,5 cm = 135mm f3.5? However, I know nothing about large format lenses and it looks rather small to me Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As other (more) reliable and informed people of the forum already said Goerz Dagor is a legend. I saw incredible large format shots taken with that lens.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:58 pm    Post subject: Older Dagors Reply with quote
These are fine lenses. The focal length makes no difference. They are symmetrical and thus can be used equally well at infinity and for close shots. They have only 4 air glass surfaces since both the front and back are cemented triplets so that flare is less an issue than with many uncoated lenses. Lens hoods, though, are always recommended.

Their real "value" is that the circle of coverage expands greatly as one stops down - important on larger format cameras that allow for tilt, shift and swing.
If used on a "35mm" half or full frame this is irrelevant except that Goerz always tried to optimize quality across the coverage of the lens. Thus the center is not usually an atypical sweet spot as it is on many lenses.

Wide open was meant to be used for initial focusing so they really do not become "good" until about f11 and become better up to f22. However, given your interest in somewhat soft lenses for portraits this may not be a disadvantage. Additionally, Dagors (except for the last Golden Dagors made in the 1960s) have focus shift on stopping down. That is why I said full open is for initial focusing. It is best to focus Dagors at or as close to shooting aperture as possible.

I used Dagors of this sort for over 40 years but then poorer eyesight and an older back that did not do well in stooped focusing made me quit. I however have kept my G-Clarons made by Schneider. The early (1968-1971) versions were Golden Dagors with the smoothest OOF I have ever found, as is also true of earlier Dagors, though the use of different glass in the Golden makes them in my opinion the best of the bunch. In 1972 Schneider changed the formula to a plasmat that is slightly sharper but that does not have the OOF of the Golden Dagor. No Dagor whatever its age has CA. Their true symmetry and somewhat small open aperture do away with any possibility of this. Of course given the focus shift it is not aberration free. That shift results from zonal spherical aberrations. Thus there is not merely focus shift but also coma especially at the edges of the full image circle. But visible coma should not be a real problem for a half or full frame "35mm" camera.

Dial shutters are in my experience the most reliable of the Compur shutters. They are easy to clean and I always ran them "dry" without any lubrication - something that would not work with newer Compurs. This is again irrelevant for small format use since one would just open the lens to "T" (a version of bulb that stays open until you close it) and then set the aperture. One can use a step ring under the flange on the rear of the shutter and then mate that ring to say a M42 to whatever the other ring is to screw into a focusing helical.

If it is not that expensive it is more than worth a try given your interests.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Peter, on a modern camera, such contraption can look rather neat...(a different lens of course)



The focusing helicoid behind is not visible btw.

This uses the idea jmiro has outlined above (shutter at "T", manually set teh aperture, "A" or "M" mode on camera)


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Awesome


patrickh


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Peter, how much is it being offered? I've seen some mindboggling shots
with a Goerz Dagor, fascinating bokeh, too. They go for crazy money
on ebay in the US.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@jmiro: thank you very much for your detailed reply! You are completely right with your observation that I'm not looking for the utmost sharpness.

@Klaus: that's quite an interesting lens you are showing here! Do you have "normal" shots with that setup?

@Katastrofo: the seller is asking EUR 75-95. What do you think?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:


@Klaus: that's quite an interesting lens you are showing here! Do you have "normal" shots with that setup?


Sure, here you go (just my "usual" flower shots...):

stepped down:


fully open:


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Peter, (half to check what the USD to Euro is) I'd go for it. I've seen the
Dagors approach and exceed a $1000 over here. You could sell it to one
of the LF guys here in the states (if you didn't want it) and make a tidy
profit. I remember an old Seneca 4x5 camera with Goerz Dagor that
went for $1400USD.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Katastrofo wrote:
Peter, (half to check what the USD to Euro is) I'd go for it. I've seen the
Dagors approach and exceed a $1000 over here. You could sell it to one
of the LF guys here in the states (if you didn't want it) and make a tidy
profit. I remember an old Seneca 4x5 camera with Goerz Dagor that
went for $1400USD.


Just be careful to see if it covers the 4x5 format, from the focal length (135mm) I guess it was designed for something smaller and that probably didn't need to tilt and swing.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:51 pm    Post subject: 135 Dagor coverage Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

Just be careful to see if it covers the 4x5 format, from the focal length (135mm) I guess it was designed for something smaller and that probably didn't need to tilt and swing.


A 135 Dagor wide open will cover 4x5 with somewhat good definition at the edges. Stopped down to at least f22 it will have over 80 degrees GOOD coverage. That over 80 degrees means a circle of good definition of at least a 230mm diameter at 80 degrees - a diameter that will easily cover even 5x7 with some movements.

There is a difference in the circle of illumination and the circle of good definition with these lenses depending on the aperture. The circle of illumination of a Dagor is about as large with the lens wide open as it is stopped down. However the sharpness of the periphery of the image isn't very good wide open. But this area gets much sharper as you stop down.

In contrast, "dialyte" lenses, like Goerz Artars, (4 elements 4 group and thus a "true" double Gauss design) are very sharp to the edges of the image wide open. But their coverage is only about 47 degrees and doesn't get larger as the lens is stopped down. (The same is true of other good dialytes such as the Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7.) These dialytes are also symmetrical and thus very sharp close up or at infinity. But coverage of 47 degrees means it will, if pushed, just cover a diameter equal at most to the focal length of the lens.

Such dialytes are real apo lenses. Not merely no CA but no other aberrations - in particular no coma etc from zonal spherical aberrations. This is the basis of the difference then between famous Goerz lenses. Artars were APOs and primarily used for making copy 1:1 for printing purposes. (However they work beautifully as taking lenses at infinity if stopped down a little. But the coverage is limited in comparison to Dagors or modern plasmats.) Dagors were meant to be taking lenses and when stopped down allow for as much tilt, swings, and shifts as needed. They were "wide-field" lenses.

Modern plasmats - most recent large format lenses - have about 72 degrees of coverage stopped down. Why not use a Dagor formula now? They are much harder to get control of coma in manufacture and do not really allow for wider apertures than f6.8. Even 6.8 is a stretch. (The G-Clarons Golden Dagors I mentioned in an earlier post are only f9 lenses wide open no matter the focal length.) Getting control of coma is very expensive - centering those triplets and getting the glasses to fit together properly takes a long time and really has to be done lens by lens. Plasmats can be put together using "modern" industrial techniques and are thus "cheaper." Part of modern technique is modern coatings that allow for more air to glass surfaces - plasmats have 8 in a 6 element 4 group design versus only 4 air to glass in a Dagor.

I have no idea of present Dagor prices so I cannot be of use about that.

Last edited by jmiro on Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:08 pm    Post subject: Re: 135 Dagor coverage Reply with quote
jmiro wrote:

They are much harder to get control of coma in manufacture and do not really allow for wider apertures than f6.8. Even 6.8 is a stretch. Getting control of coma is very expensive - centering those triplets and getting the glasses to fit together properly takes a long time and really has to be done lens by lens. Plasmats can be put together using "modern" industrial techniques.


Right. Thanks to that, the Dagors on 1920's amateur cameras are a far cry from a pro grade Dagor. Going by my experience with budget Dagors, I would not expect this lens to have good coverage beyond 9x12 (135mm was a normal for the next smaller size, quarter plate). There are reasons why these plate folders with Dagor sell for less than one tenth of the real thing, camera inclusive...

Mind, it is a nice lens for its time and camera. It was a up-market plate folder lens, once at the upper end of gear available to consumers. If you buy such a folder to use, get one with a Dagor, Tessar or Heliar, and you won't be disappointed - but don't expect to transplant their lenses to a modern large format camera and get late coated pro grade Dagor quality for next to nothing.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:33 pm    Post subject: Re: 135 Dagor coverage Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:

The Dagors on 1920's amateur cameras are a far cry from a pro grade Dagor. Going by my experience with budget Dagors, I would not expect this lens to have good coverage beyond 9x12 (135mm was a normal for the next smaller size, quarter plate). There are reasons why these plate folders with Dagor sell for less than one tenth of the real thing, camera inclusive...


Spotmatic said the lens said "C.P. Goerz Dagor." In my experience of many decades and having as a teenager been taught by Stu Levy who invented the Lens and Repro store on West 17th in Manhatten and was an authority on and in love with Dagors, Goerz Dagors as distinct from Dagors from other makers were as I said. I cannot stake my life on it but simply convey my experience and that of others.

To use a parallel example, Kodak used 7.7 dialytes of different focal lengths on many of it larger folders for "consumer" use. They had all the characteristics of later coated 203 7.7 Ektars in terms of good coverage, etc. There were many second hand stores about 6 blocks from Lens and Repro. I would get these Kodak folders for 50 cents each. The lens was usually in a somewhat "cheap" shutter. I would take this, sometimes get the glass coated by nice older guys at Goerz, front mount them on good shutters with sync and sell them to NYC newmen to use on Speed or Crown Graphics. (The reason for coating them was that newspeople often used blasting flash that would bounce off and back from shiny objects in the background.) They loved them and I made some good money on that business. Stu encouraged this even though Dagors were his first love.

None of what I say is definitive. But I hope it offers some grounds for Spotmatic perhaps getting a good deal if he is still interested.

But it is also the case that some small measure of extremely good quality can be found cheaply on XBay. There are bargains available from people who do not know what they are selling.

Many have obtained excellent 35mm lenses fairly inexpensively by looking at camera and lens combos. People often do not even list the lens data properly or misspell it or.. but they do supply pix of some sort that allows a buyer to get a fairly good idea of what is going on.

There are also seasons such as now when money is scarce or people are busy with other matters. A few days ago I bid on a Canon FL 85 f1.8 from a large reputable buyer that had a very very slight and limited coating defect but was otherwise very clean. $5.75 USD with $7.50 for shipping. The next day for a Minolta XD11 in good shape from another large reputable buyer I bid $20 USD and got it. Both the lens and camera had 7 day return no questions asked policy. In neither case was there a reserve limit. In one case there was only one other bidder and in the other no other bidder.

To sum up, you may be right but .....


PostPosted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:20 pm    Post subject: Re: 135 Dagor coverage Reply with quote
jmiro wrote:


Spotmatic said the lens said "C.P. Goerz Dagor." In my experience of many decades and having as a teenager been taught by Stu Levy who invented the Lens and Repro store on West 17th in Manhatten and was an authority on and in love with Dagors, Goerz Dagors as distinct from Dagors from other makers were as I said.


C.P.Goerz were the trademark owners of "Dagor" (Double Anastigmat GOeRz) and patent holders of the lens design - anything else was licensed from them. Goerz suffered a rather sad fate in the economic crisis of the twenties, when their main company in Berlin went belly up and ended in the Zeiss Ikon merger which brought almost half the German camera industry under control of the Zeiss foundation, who stopped the lens production in all companies they had (unfriendly) taken over, in favour of Carl Zeiss.

Before they collapsed, C.P.Goerz Berlin turned out many a turnip named Dagor - in their struggle for survival they attempted to get a share of the growing consumer camera market with smaller Dagors, where they could not really be competitive with such a complex design.

The Goerz trademark lived on through the Austrian and US partner/daughter companies - Goerz Vienna had little visibility beyond Austria, but C.P. Goerz American Optical Co. of New York continued to refine the Dagor, and their Dagors are the famous and high valued ones. They were bought by Schneider in the seventies.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:35 pm    Post subject: Re: 135 Dagor coverage Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:


Goerz suffered a rather sad fate in the economic crisis of the twenties, .....

Before they collapsed, C.P.Goerz Berlin turned out many a turnip named Dagor - in their struggle for survival they attempted to get a share of the growing consumer camera market with smaller Dagors, where they could not really be competitive with such a complex design.



I stand corrected. I have no reason to think your version of the history and especially its consequences are wrong. I think we agree that, if put together improperly, a Dagor will be much worse than a decent Tessar type lens. Given all of that, it is probably unwise for Spotmatic to go after this Dagor. The "turnip" Dagors for many reasons that I can now think of did not show up in the United States and they were not a fact that had to be dealt with here.

But I seem also to have been operating on bad history. The version I was brought up on, even by the Goerz American Optical People, was that Goerz started an American branch in 1895 that was incorporated as C. P. Goerz American Optical Co in 1905. Pre WW I German Dagors said Berlin on them and often Series 3. (There were quite a few of these around when I was a lad and they were fine lenses of their type.) The version I was told then said that during WW I Goerz Berlin for all practical purposes only made optical equipment of various sorts for the German and Austrian military to be used for special military purposes – say, periscopes not merely for the navy but also for trench warfare. This provided, along with anti-German sentiment in many countries, the real opportunity for Goerz American Optical to expand and become the main maker of Dagors from that time on. There were a very few Dagors around in the USA that simply said C. P. Goerz. These were perfectly fine Dagors in my and other people's experience. The reason I was told the name Berlin was dropped was because of anti-German sentiment after WW I. I was also told there were very few of these made and that also given the quality of Goerz American Optical Dagors Goerz Berlin simply stopped making Dagors. The story then went on to say that few years later in 1926 there was the Zeiss-Ikon merger you talk about and thus no need to even think of German Dagors as opposed to just Goerz Dagors, whatever the "branding" might say, since Zeiss demanded of all the merged companies that they stop making their branded lenses of whatever type AND that Goerz Berlin had anyway stopped making Dagors years before the merger.

Goerz American Optical did make Dagors that were used on “consumer” folder cameras and these cameras could be found in the same second hand shops as the Kodak 7.7 anastigmats I spoke of in an earlier post. Kodak was a real competitor and Goerz and others were concerned that it would become a monopoly in the way that people worry about Microsoft becoming or being a de facto monoply. Again the version of the story I was told was that these were not done for profit in the same way that, say, normal Takumars were not made for profit but as a way of establishing a name for quality in potentially larger markets.

I would appreciate any expansion of what you have already said that might further correct my bad history.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1