Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,469   Posts: 1,570,882   Online: 1083
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 78
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,937
    Images
    54
    Has there been any current lens manufactures that have tried to duplicate these lens. They seem to be a basic lens formula, and so sought after it would be a money maker.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    As someone previously mentioned, the Schneider XXL series is based upon the basic Dagor design with modern coatings entered into the lens equation.

    Talk to a lens designer about a Dagor and you hear that you can easily do technically much better for the dollars expended in producing it. As Jim mentioned the market for 19" to 24" Dagors (or their modern equals) is very limited and one would have to produce many (hundreds) to keep the price within the range of the photographers that would want to use them. Look at the suggested retail price for the Schneider XXL series (the 550 mm and the 1100 mm) and you will get a sense of the numbers I am making reference to.

    That is what makes them scarce commodities in the used market.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,937
    Images
    54
    Thanks Michael, I thought about the need for a new lens being made now after I posted. Just wasn't thinking faster than my fingers . It does make sense that a manufacture would not produce something that had limited use. To bad if the market was flooded with them they'd be a lot less costly. Thanks for the response

    mike c..

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by mike c View Post
    Thanks Michael, I thought about the need for a new lens being made now after I posted. Just wasn't thinking faster than my fingers . It does make sense that a manufacture would not produce something that had limited use. To bad if the market was flooded with them they'd be a lot less costly. Thanks for the response

    mike c..
    No problem. I must admit that after acquiring an older 12 and 14" Dagor and shooting with them I was surprised that they do far better in the visual department than I expected based upon when they were manufactured and the production techniques from that early era. Of course if you are contact printing ULF as opposed to enlarging a smaller format the visual criteria you could be considering would likely be significantly different. In a different arena is the cult like respect afforded these unique lenses.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,937
    Images
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak View Post
    No problem. I must admit that after acquiring an older 12 and 14" Dagor and shooting with them I was surprised that they do far better in the visual department than I expected based upon when they were manufactured and the production techniques from that early era. Of course if you are contact printing ULF as opposed to enlarging a smaller format the visual criteria you could be considering would likely be significantly different. In a different arena is the cult like respect afforded these unique lenses.
    Yes I do see the difference between contact printing an enlarging,I was able to use an old Kodak D2 8X10 with a 12" Bush&Lomb lens. and was very impressed with the contacts prints the negs produced. There is a certain quality that I can't get enlarging negs for my hasselblad . Hope to invest in a LF in the future some time and have fun using those lenses,I'll get there some time.

    mike c.

  6. #26
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,441
    Images
    6
    Mike,

    I bought a 12" gold rim Dagor for architecture because it had much more coverage than the 305 G Clarion I was using on 7x17. It had the coverage, but I fell in love with the different look of the Dagor, maybe a glow to the highlights. I have found it very difficult to describe the different look, but it is there. The 12 inch has now become my standard lens on the 7x17 and my 8x10. Mathematically that may not make sense, but I “see” much wider on the 7x17 than on the 8x10. It seems like normal lens to me even though it is wide for 7x17. A normal 7x17 lens is about 466mm or so rather than 300mm.

    re: enlarge vs contact, I enlarge 8x10 to 20x24 and contact print the 7x17.
    re: "I'll get there some time." See the maturity and LF thread. Maybe you aren't old enough yet. We will let you into the old folks home when you are ready. Don't wait too long though. The beds are filling up fast.

    John Powers

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    At one time I owned a 19" f/7.7 Dagor and it covered 20X24" with lots of movement, but wide open it was very soft on the corners of this format. It was a Process Dagor, and judging by the serial number was made prior to 1920. At some point it was after coated.

    It was not a particulary sharp lens, even stopped down, but produced a very plesant kind of creamy look with nice bokeh.

    Sandy King


    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hamley View Post
    The Series IV was a wide angle lens. IIRC, Goerz claimed it covered 100 degrees, but I can't seem to find the brochure on Camera Eccentrics site although the Series IV is mentioned in passing in the earlier Goerz catalog. I think Tracy saaid the 19" covered 20x24 wide open - which I can't test - but the small size and large coverage are very attractive to owners of older banquet cameras like the 8x20 and 12x20 Koronas that might gasp and die with a f:7.7 Dagor attached to it. A picture of my 19" Double Anastigmat Series IV is attached, mounted in a Copal #3 on a Linhof Technika board.

    Cheers, Steve

  8. #28
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    If your looking for a razor sharp lens then don't by a Dagor. I have no idea where the perception came from that a Dagor is a sharp lens. Of course my 16 1/2" is probably one of the oldest in use and the serial number dates back to 1903. But that old non-coated piece of glass has a lot character/bokeh. Now if I stop down to f45 it is plenty sharp enough for me and contact printing in 8x20 and 12x20. Even doing portraits in these formats with it I find I don't have to worry about it being to wide as I thought it would be initially. I think with ULF you don't have to worry about the proper focal length for a portrait lens as you do with the smaller formats. Now with that said, I'm no optics expert so please don't ask me to explain why ULF would be exempt from the proper focal lengths for portraits. But I can show you a few pics that will explain it pretty well. An even better example is to take a look at some of the fantastic portraits that Zebra shoots in 20x24 with a 550 lens.

  9. #29
    RobertP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,130
    Images
    8
    As far as weight goes, that is something I always have to contend with. I own a Wisner 8x20 Expedition. It has both vertical and horizontal backs and front standards. In either configuration, especially the vertical, this 11lb camera shoots with some pretty large lens. I use a 17x20 Wollensak Versar (22 1/2") lens that is a pretty heavy cannon. I just use this under the lens. The problem with this camera is not ever the weight of the lens but the small 5 1/4" lens boards that it was designed with. I'm still scratching my head on that one. If Ron ever reappears I'll ask him why such small boards on ULF cameras. http://www.apug.org/forums/attachmen...1&d=1239480209
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails IMG_0313.jpg  

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    I have owned several Dagors that were very sharp when stopped down to f/16 - f/22. My 210mm G-Claron is a Dagor design lens and it is very sharp and has superb contrast.

    The plasmat design gives sharper results wide open but is no sharper than a Dagor when stopped down, and has less coverage.

    Sandy King


    Quote Originally Posted by RobertP View Post
    If your looking for a razor sharp lens then don't by a Dagor. I have no idea where the perception came from that a Dagor is a sharp lens. Of course my 16 1/2" is probably one of the oldest in use and the serial number dates back to 1903. But that old non-coated piece of glass has a lot character/bokeh. Now if I stop down to f45 it is plenty sharp enough for me and contact printing in 8x20 and 12x20. Even doing portraits in these formats with it I find I don't have to worry about it being to wide as I thought it would be initially. I think with ULF you don't have to worry about the proper focal length for a portrait lens as you do with the smaller formats. Now with that said, I'm no optics expert so please don't ask me to explain why ULF would be exempt from the proper focal lengths for portraits. But I can show you a few pics that will explain it pretty well. An even better example is to take a look at some of the fantastic portraits that Zebra shoots in 20x24 with a 550 lens.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin