Info on Dagors Please
MSwiek
the Goerz (later Schneider) Dagor lenses. What is the difference between the
"Gold Dot," "Gold Rim," and "Golden" Dagors ? Are these lenses suitable as
normal lenses for general photography with 4x5 view cameras ? How do they
compare with older (convertible) and modern Symmars ? Thanks.
Mike
Richard Knoppow
There has been rather a lot of discussion of these lenses in this
group in the past. A search of Dejanews using the "old" or
"complete" database should come up with a bunch of stuff.
The Dagor is one of the most famous lenses historically. It was the
workhorse of LF photographers for some sixty years and remains a
desirable lens. The design was modified a few times over the life of
the lens but even very old ones can be excellent.
The Golden Dagor is the right name for the "gold rim" dagor. This
appears to have been a marketing ploy by Goerz after WW-2 when sales
of these lenses started to fall off. It is essentially the same lens
they were selling before except the front emement cell was finished in
gold finished brass rather than black.
The Gold-Dot is another matter. These were built after Goerz divised
a very precise centering machine. They may also have been re-designed.
I think some Gold-Dots were built in New york but am not sure of that.
Certainly, the last of them was built by Kern Optical in Switzerland
under contract to Schneider. These are reputed to be extremely fine
lenses.
Schneider built two different lenses under the name Symmar. The
early one was a copy of the Dagor. These are f/6.8 lenses. The later
Symmar is f/5.6 and is a "Plasmat" type lens. Plasmats have an
advantage over the Dagor in that the air spaced elements give the
designer more to work with in correcting the lens. The Dagor type has
an inherant fault, namely a large amount of uncorrected zonal
spherical aberration. This causes the lens to be somewhat soft when
wide open and to have focus shift. That is , the point of apparent
sharpest focus changes as the lens is stopped down. The use of modern
glass helps to improve matters for the Dagor but the problem is
inherant in the desigh and can't be corrected nearly as well as in the
Plasmat.
Schneider Convertible f/5.6 Symmars suffer a little from the
compromises which had to be made to make the lens convertible. Later
versions, which were not convertible, are a little sharper. This is
probably also a result of other factors too such as different glass.
Any Dagor or Symmar in good condition is worth considering.
The early "Dagor" type Symmar is reportedly not the equal of the
Dagor. By the time the f/5.6 Symmar came out Schneider was building
some of the best lenses around. These lenses seem to have been made
with good quality control although you can find poor lenses from any
manufacturer. The same is true of the Dagor although Goerz had good
repution for relibility and quality.
Dagors have very slightly larger image circles than Symmars (about
87deg vs about 75deg, both at around f/45 or smaller). Dagors also
are somewhat smaller and lighter than Symmars of the same FL.
The original Goerz company was German and was absorbed by Zeiss in
1926. Occasionally, one finds Dagors made by Goerz in Germany or by
Zeiss, who continued to make them for some time. Beware, however, of
"Berlin Dagor" lenses. Theses were assembled after WW-2 by Burke &
James, a big Chicago supply house, from parts of questionable
provenance. They were pretty awful. I believe the retaining rings of
these lenses bear neither the Goerz or Zeiss names. If this is
incorrect will someone please correct me.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Brian Downey
Berlin Dagors in 300mm. It is labeled " C.P. Goerz Berlin Dagor F6.8 12in No.
659021". ( It's in a silver and black Copal 3 shutter so I assume it is a
re-mount.) Unlike most Goerz lens I have seen, this one is labeled arount the
_outside_ of the lens barrel, and in a typewriter quality font.
I have an older Dagor marked "Goerz Dagor, F6.8 Focus 12 in No. 397969" in an Ilex
#4. It is labeled on the inside of the barrel in a "nicer" font. (This may also
be a remount, having very obvious machined spacer rings mating the elements to the
shutter.)
So I guess at least one of the Berlin Dagor's was marked "Gorez".
Davidlindq
(Richard Knoppow) writes:
>I think some Gold-Dots were built in New york but am not sure of that.
The Gold Dot Dagor was made in the U.S. I bought a new Gold Dot Dagor in 1969.
(Schneider acquired Goerz in 1972-73). The box is marked Goerz Optical Company,
Inc., Inwood, Long Island, N.Y. A Goerz price list I have dated 10-67 uses the
name "Golden Dagor", a price list dated 8-70 uses the name "Gold Dot Dagor". I
also have two Goerz brochures, undated but probably from the late 1960's. Oddly
enough they use the name Golden Dagor in the text but the lenses shown in the
illustrations are of the Gold Dot style.
David Lindquist
David...@aol.com
Terry Roth
>
> msw...@aol.com (MSwiek) wrote:
>
> >Could someone please fill me in on the differences, merits and weaknesses of
> >the Goerz (later Schneider) Dagor lenses. What is the difference between the
> >"Gold Dot," "Gold Rim," and "Golden" Dagors ? Are these lenses suitable as
> >normal lenses for general photography with 4x5 view cameras ? How do they
> >compare with older (convertible) and modern Symmars ? Thanks.
> >
> >Mike
> There has been rather a lot of discussion of these lenses in this
> group in the past. A search of Dejanews using the "old" or
> "complete" database should come up with a bunch of stuff.
> The Dagor is one of the most famous lenses historically. It was the
> workhorse of LF photographers for some sixty years and remains a
> desirable lens. The design was modified a few times over the life of
> the lens but even very old ones can be excellent.
> The Golden Dagor is the right name for the "gold rim" dagor. This
> appears to have been a marketing ploy by Goerz after WW-2 when sales
> of these lenses started to fall off. It is essentially the same lens
> they were selling before except the front emement cell was finished in
> gold finished brass rather than black.
> The Gold-Dot is another matter. These were built after Goerz divised
> a very precise centering machine. They may also have been re-designed.
> these lenses bear neither the Goerz or Zeiss names. If this is
> incorrect will someone please correct me.
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, Ca.
> dick...@ix.netcom.com
Edward Bolsetzian, a retired optical worker for American Optical quite a
few years back, says the golden dagors are no different than 'the
others'---said that there was a batch awaiting black paint, or
anodizing, and they were short of time and shipped them out with the
'golden' rims, found they got to be a "cult" item. They are no diffent
optically than earlier American Optical dagors. He wrote to View Camera
a few years ago, and Ron Wisner mentioned a conversation with him in an
article in VIEW CAMERA about Goerz lenses. I could dig out the issue if
it's important.
I called Mr. Bolsetzian when I was in the market for a used Dagor,
but he had already sold off the focal length I was interested in. A
frind of mine bought a 14inch "custom" Dagor, Edward said they would
make up a Dagor when they had a new batch of optical glass and wanted
to test transmisison characteristics. My friend says it's the best
lens he's ever shot with for 8x10, and he has had the big Super Symmar,
Commercial Ektars, and just about everything else.
Dick is correct, the Berlin (or series III) dagors are behind the
Zeiss dagors and Goerz uncoated. The cream of the crop are the Kern
Dagors made for Schneider, and the current price ($1200+ for 300mm)
I have used a 12-inch Dagor on 8X10, and another friend uses a 6inch
WA Dagor for 5x7. They make a lovely image, perhaps not quite as sharp
as a Sironar-S (but then, what else is??) but a very lovely life-like
quality to the image. I have comparison shots of some leaves trapped in
ice, taken with a 12" Dagor and a 240mm Apo-Nikkor, and actually prefer
the Dagor for tonality.
Dick K. is correct, the B&J post-factory coated lenses are not up to
the best, which are those made under contract to Schneider by Kern
Paillard, they are AGAIG (as good as it gets) and the current prices for
used lenses ($1200+ for 14inch lenses) reflects this. Wish I had one!
You can't go wrong with a Dagor, if the price is right and it hasn't
been retro-coated (most American Optical are OK, some are wonderful,
they were coated during manufacture.)
as for Symmar, Mr. Knoppow has summarized this nicely, I had a 210
Symmar-S which never really pleased me and I got rid of it. There was a
"hardness" to the image which I can't describe very well, but which I
didn;t like. Much prefer the G-Claron in the Schneider line. YMMV, the
Symmar is a very popular lens, and they are reasonably priced on the
used market. I would rank them like this:
resolution and contrast:
Apo Sironar-S, Schneider (Kern) Dagor,Apo-Symmar, Symmar-S and
Sironar-N, Caltar clones, Dagor.
image quality and 'feel'
Kern Dagor, Apo-Sironar S, AM Opt 'golden' Dagors, any Dagor, Symmar.
Watch for focus shift with Dagors, this means check focus at f16 or so
and refocus if necessary at the smaller aperture. Or just focus at f11
and stop down to f32 or f45!!! ;-)
Davidlindq
<terryroth@earthlink.#net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Info on Dagors Please
>From: Terry Roth <terryroth@earthlink.#net>
>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:59:12 -0700
>
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
(snip of all of Richard's post except what gets referred to later)
>> The Gold-Dot is another matter. These were built after Goerz divised
>> a very precise centering machine. They may also have been re-designed.
>>. Beware, however, of
>> "Berlin Dagor" lenses. Theses were assembled after WW-2 by Burke &
>> James, a big Chicago supply house, from parts of questionable
>> provenance. They were pretty awful. I believe the retaining rings of
>> these lenses bear neither the Goerz or Zeiss names. If this is
>> incorrect will someone please correct me.
>> ---
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, Ca.
>> dick...@ix.netcom.com
>******************************
>
>Edward Bolsetzian, a retired optical worker for American Optical quite a
>few years back, says the golden dagors are no different than 'the
>others'---said that there was a batch awaiting black paint, or
>anodizing, and they were short of time and shipped them out with the
>'golden' rims, found they got to be a "cult" item. They are no diffent
>optically than earlier American Optical dagors. He wrote to View Camera
>a few years ago, and Ron Wisner mentioned a conversation with him in an
>article in VIEW CAMERA about Goerz lenses. I could dig out the issue if
>it's important.
What issue of View Camera is Mr Bolsetzian's letter in? (I have Ron Wisner's
article, but would like to find Mr. Bolsetzian's letter.) Mr. Bolsetzian had a
letter in the March 1986 issue of Shutterbug. In it he talks about building the
centering device Richard mentions. Since it sounds like you are in contact with
Mr. Bolsetzian, I wonder if you could ask him how (or if) the Gold Dot Dagor
differed from its Dagor/ Golden Dagor predecessors, other than, apparently,
benefiting from being assembled with his centering device. Also it's
interesting to hear the story of the origins of the Golden Dagor name from him.
Lynn Jones, in his article in the Jan/Feb 1996 issue of View Camera tells the
same story, ascribing it to Harry Grant, one time sales manager at Goerz. It
sounded apocryphal there, and I was inclined to discount it at the time. This
was, after all, the article where Jones asserts that the B&J Berlin Dagors were
much superior to those made by C.P. Goerz American Optical Co./Goerz Optical
Co.
> I called Mr. Bolsetzian when I was in the market for a used Dagor,
>but he had already sold off the focal length I was interested in. A
>frind of mine bought a 14inch "custom" Dagor, Edward said they would
>make up a Dagor when they had a new batch of optical glass and wanted
>to test transmisison characteristics. My friend says it's the best
>lens he's ever shot with for 8x10, and he has had the big Super Symmar,
>Commercial Ektars, and just about everything else.
> Dick is correct, the Berlin (or series III) dagors are behind the
>Zeiss dagors and Goerz uncoated. The cream of the crop are the Kern
>Dagors made for Schneider, and the current price ($1200+ for 300mm)
> I have used a 12-inch Dagor on 8X10, and another friend uses a 6inch
>WA Dagor for 5x7. They make a lovely image, perhaps not quite as sharp
>as a Sironar-S (but then, what else is??) but a very lovely life-like
>quality to the image. I have comparison shots of some leaves trapped in
>ice, taken with a 12" Dagor and a 240mm Apo-Nikkor, and actually prefer
>the Dagor for tonality.
> Dick K. is correct, the B&J post-factory coated lenses are not up to
>the best, which are those made under contract to Schneider by Kern
>Paillard, they are AGAIG (as good as it gets) and the current prices for
>used lenses ($1200+ for 14inch lenses) reflects this. Wish I had one!
> You can't go wrong with a Dagor, if the price is right and it hasn't
>been retro-coated (most American Optical are OK, some are wonderful,
>they were coated during manufacture.)
>(snip of some of Terry's stuff)
Thank you very much Terry for this interesting and useful information. I hope
that somehow sometime someone can do some oral history work with Mr. Bolsetzian
and other surviving workers from the U.S. Goerz operation. I wonder if company
records survive. As Richard has said, the company's recent history seems more
obscure than their earlier years.
David Lindquist
David...@aol.com
Thor Lancelot Simon
Davidlindq <david...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Thank you very much Terry for this interesting and useful information. I hope
>that somehow sometime someone can do some oral history work with Mr. Bolsetzian
>and other surviving workers from the U.S. Goerz operation. I wonder if company
>records survive. As Richard has said, the company's recent history seems more
>obscure than their earlier years.
If so, it's only because there's so much nonsense flying around that it
has obscured the pretty simple facts.
All Dagors with serial numbers after 77000 (I may have dropped a zero there;
I don't own any Dagors any more to check) are essentially the same; this
includes all gold-dot, "golden" (gold bezel) and some plain black paint
Dagors. They're generally all reformulated with modern glass, have good
single coatings, and were centered with the automatic process which eliminated
most of the QA problems that had resulted from the difficulty of centering
Dagor-type lenses by hand.
The Kern-built Dagors sold by Schneider are an exception; some are multicoated
and are marked "MC-Dagor" and are presumably better than the other post-77000
modern Dagors in that they should have better contrast. I've shot one and
can confirm that it was a pretty contrasty lens, but multicoating just isn't
as important with the Dagor design as it is with the more common modern
Plasmats, which have more air-glass interfaces.
Now, "Gold Dot" and "Golden" Dagors sell for a premium for various reasons;
the collector market, confusion over whether all Dagors with serial numbers
over 77000 are of similar optical quality (they are), hype from various
dealers, etc. and so forth. If you're looking for a Dagor I would recommend
a non gold-dot, non "golden" or "gold rim" post-77000 lens in a Rapax shutter.
I had a lens like that and I still somewhat regret selling it. OTOH I bought
it before the current Dagor craze for $395 and sold it about a year and a
half ago _to a dealer_ for $400 -- so I don't feel _too_ bad about it. The
Rapax shutter was the only one I had and was a bit of a nuisance to maintain
just because of its uniqueness but was both accurate and consistent, which is
a rarety in LF shutters both old and new.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
Kerry Thalmann
> If you're looking for a Dagor I would recommend
> a non gold-dot, non "golden" or "gold rim" post-77000 lens in a Rapax shutter.
> I had a lens like that and I still somewhat regret selling it. OTOH I bought
> it before the current Dagor craze for $395 and sold it about a year and a
> half ago _to a dealer_ for $400 -- so I don't feel _too_ bad about it. The
> Rapax shutter was the only one I had and was a bit of a nuisance to maintain
> just because of its uniqueness but was both accurate and consistent, which is
> a rarety in LF shutters both old and new.
Just a quick note on the Rapax shutters. IMHO, they are the best of the
American made shutters IF KEPT CLEAN. They are not sealed real well, so
dust and dirt can get inside pretty easily and gum them up requiring
frequent CLA. I have had several lenses in Rapax shutters and greatly
prefer them to the clunky, wind-up toy like Ilex Acme types. I always
store them in Zip Loc freezer bags when not in use to keep the dirt out,
and they perform great. When properly cleaned, they are very accurate
(my shutter guy swears they are more accurate than a brand new Copal).
Much smaller and lighter than the Ilex Acmes, too.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://home.att.net/~k.thalmann/
skgrimes
"old days" at Goerz. Lots of anecdotes. Try Eddie at 1 Fichtner Rd,
Chichester, NY 12416 SKG
--
--- S.K. Grimes -- Feinmechanik ----
--Machine work for photographers
--Lenses fitted to shutters, iris scales engraved
http://www.skgrimes.com
(updated 7-20-98)
Davidlindq wrote in message
<199807290450...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6pj4de$2p9$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Terry Roth
><terryroth@earthlink.#net> writes:
>
>>Subject: Re: Info on Dagors Please
>>From: Terry Roth <terryroth@earthlink.#net>
>>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:59:12 -0700
>>
>>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>>
>
>(snip of all of Richard's post except what gets referred to later)
>
>>> The Gold-Dot is another matter. These were built after Goerz divised
>>> a very precise centering machine. They may also have been re-designed.
>>>. Beware, however, of
>>> "Berlin Dagor" lenses. Theses were assembled after WW-2 by Burke &
>>> James, a big Chicago supply house, from parts of questionable
>>> provenance. They were pretty awful. I believe the retaining rings of
>>> these lenses bear neither the Goerz or Zeiss names. If this is
>>> incorrect will someone please correct me.
>>> ---
>>> Richard Knoppow
>>> Los Angeles, Ca.
>>> dick...@ix.netcom.com
>>******************************
>>
>>Edward Bolsetzian, a retired optical worker for American Optical quite a
>>few years back, says the golden dagors are no different than 'the
>>others'---said that there was a batch awaiting black paint, or
>>anodizing, and they were short of time and shipped them out with the
>>'golden' rims, found they got to be a "cult" item. They are no diffent
>>optically than earlier American Optical dagors. He wrote to View Camera
>>a few years ago, and Ron Wisner mentioned a conversation with him in an
>>article in VIEW CAMERA about Goerz lenses. I could dig out the issue if
>>it's important.
>
>> I called Mr. Bolsetzian when I was in the market for a used Dagor,
>>but he had already sold off the focal length I was interested in. A
>>frind of mine bought a 14inch "custom" Dagor, Edward said they would
>>make up a Dagor when they had a new batch of optical glass and wanted
>>to test transmisison characteristics. My friend says it's the best
>>lens he's ever shot with for 8x10, and he has had the big Super Symmar,
>>Commercial Ektars, and just about everything else.
>> Dick is correct, the Berlin (or series III) dagors are behind the
>>Zeiss dagors and Goerz uncoated. The cream of the crop are the Kern
>>Dagors made for Schneider, and the current price ($1200+ for 300mm)
>> I have used a 12-inch Dagor on 8X10, and another friend uses a 6inch
>>WA Dagor for 5x7. They make a lovely image, perhaps not quite as sharp
>>as a Sironar-S (but then, what else is??) but a very lovely life-like
>>quality to the image. I have comparison shots of some leaves trapped in
>>ice, taken with a 12" Dagor and a 240mm Apo-Nikkor, and actually prefer
>>the Dagor for tonality.
>> Dick K. is correct, the B&J post-factory coated lenses are not up to
>>the best, which are those made under contract to Schneider by Kern
>>Paillard, they are AGAIG (as good as it gets) and the current prices for
>>used lenses ($1200+ for 14inch lenses) reflects this. Wish I had one!
>> You can't go wrong with a Dagor, if the price is right and it hasn't
>>been retro-coated (most American Optical are OK, some are wonderful,
>>they were coated during manufacture.)
>>(snip of some of Terry's stuff)
>
>Thank you very much Terry for this interesting and useful information. I
hope
>that somehow sometime someone can do some oral history work with Mr.
Bolsetzian
>and other surviving workers from the U.S. Goerz operation. I wonder if
company
>records survive. As Richard has said, the company's recent history seems
more
>obscure than their earlier years.
>David Lindquist
>David...@aol.com
Richard Knoppow
>In article <199807290450...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>Davidlindq <david...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Thank you very much Terry for this interesting and useful information. I hope
>>that somehow sometime someone can do some oral history work with Mr. Bolsetzian
>>and other surviving workers from the U.S. Goerz operation. I wonder if company
>>records survive. As Richard has said, the company's recent history seems more
>>obscure than their earlier years.
>
>If so, it's only because there's so much nonsense flying around that it
>has obscured the pretty simple facts.
>
>All Dagors with serial numbers after 77000 (I may have dropped a zero there;
>I don't own any Dagors any more to check) are essentially the same; this
>includes all gold-dot, "golden" (gold bezel) and some plain black paint
>Dagors. They're generally all reformulated with modern glass, have good
>single coatings, and were centered with the automatic process which eliminated
>most of the QA problems that had resulted from the difficulty of centering
>Dagor-type lenses by hand.
>
>The Kern-built Dagors sold by Schneider are an exception; some are multicoated
>and are marked "MC-Dagor" and are presumably better than the other post-77000
>modern Dagors in that they should have better contrast. I've shot one and
>can confirm that it was a pretty contrasty lens, but multicoating just isn't
>as important with the Dagor design as it is with the more common modern
>Plasmats, which have more air-glass interfaces.
>
>Now, "Gold Dot" and "Golden" Dagors sell for a premium for various reasons;
>the collector market, confusion over whether all Dagors with serial numbers
>over 77000 are of similar optical quality (they are), hype from various
>dealers, etc. and so forth. If you're looking for a Dagor I would recommend
>a non gold-dot, non "golden" or "gold rim" post-77000 lens in a Rapax shutter.
>I had a lens like that and I still somewhat regret selling it. OTOH I bought
>it before the current Dagor craze for $395 and sold it about a year and a
>half ago _to a dealer_ for $400 -- so I don't feel _too_ bad about it. The
>Rapax shutter was the only one I had and was a bit of a nuisance to maintain
>just because of its uniqueness but was both accurate and consistent, which is
>a rarety in LF shutters both old and new.
>
>--
>Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
> "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?"
I have the Shutterbug article thanks to David Lindquist who was kind
enough to send me a copy. It is actually a letter to the editor.
In it Bolsetzian says that the centering devise was applied to lens
production in 1963. Serial numbers starting at 770000 would start
somewhere around 1947. My serial number list is also due to Mr.
Bolsetzian. This list does not extend past 1955 and has a few gaps.
It would be interesting to know how Goerz American centered lenses
and also how much better this method was than the old conventional
method.
I frequently see statements made about modern lenses being better
because they are not assembled by hand. I rather think there is as
much hand work now as ever. There maybe some automation employed
grinding and polishing the blanks and greater precision in the
centering and edging operations but both are likely to be still
ultimately controlled by observation. Cementing elements is not an
operation which could be easily automated and automation would likely
not be economical unless thousands of lenses were made.
I was sent a second article by Mr. Lindquist. This one is by Art
Kramer from "Modern Photography" May, 1969. It has a number of
bloomers. It is mainly of interst because he says that Goerz was
contemplating the manufacture of a Plasmat type lens at the time.
The Plasmat is generally credited to Paul Rudolph but Kingslake
makes clear that Emile von Hoegh, the inventor of the Dagor, proposed
it as a variation of the Dagor shortly after joining Goerz in Berlin.
The Plasmat has advantages over the Dagor but has four additional
glass-air interfaces so was not a popular design until after lens
coatings were made ecomonical. (The Ross Wide Angle Xpress is an
early Plasmat).