Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,712   Online: 796
      
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    The look. And my 12 inch covers 7x17...really.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Peters View Post
    The look. And my 12 inch covers 7x17...really.
    I am thinking that you bought a 12" Dagor from me some years ago? If this is the one, that lens actually covers 12X20", which is unusual for a 12" Dagor. In fact, even some 14" Dagors do not cover. Of course, it was pretty soft on the corners, even stopped down, but the circle of illumination was there.

    Sandy King

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    I am thinking that you bought a 12" Dagor from me some years ago? If this is the one, that lens actually covers 12X20", which is unusual for a 12" Dagor. In fact, even some 14" Dagors do not cover. Of course, it was pretty soft on the corners, even stopped down, but the circle of illumination was there.

    Sandy King
    Yes it is. Still enjoying it with my 7x17. Corners seem quite nice on the 7x17 stopped down. Thank you Sandy.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    40

    Angulon 165/6.8 or Goerz Dagor 165/6.8?

    Angulons are supposed to be a Dagor-type lenses.
    How they differ in image character and quality?
    Do you see any differences?

  5. #55
    Bruce A Cahn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    43
    The main advantage of a Dagor is that it has low contrast while being very sharp. This quality makes it very desirable for landscape photography , where there is often a problem with too great a contrast range in the subject. Also they have a lot of coverage, as mentioned above. I had several which I used as everyday lenses. The problem with them is that the shutters are old and most of them are inaccurate. I did have one mounted in a new shutter, and it was a great performer, but eventually I replaced all my vintage glass with current lenses.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3
    Notes on Dagors. I agree that the Dagor is a valueable lens for lots of reasons. But a fussy lens to use. I've never been able to focus mine (165, 101/4", 300) with open aperture. Generally I have to stop down to near f11before things become crisp enough to focus. But another thing that deserves mentioning is that many Dagor's suffer from focus shift. You might not notice it because it's slight but it happens with some, though not all. I believe that Adams recommended focusing the Dagor at or near the taking aperture, which can be hard to do in low light situations. But for those who have experienced dissapointment with the Dagor regarding sharpness this ought to be checked. An easy way to do it (maybe this is well known?) is to set your camera up as an optical bench by removing the ground glass but using a loupe so you get an ariel image. In effect your camera becomes a telescope. I made a panel to replace the camera back with a hole drilled through the middle and loupe attached. Very simple. But this will show you directly what your glass is doing for you. Generally all lenses are brilliant right in the center. What makes a good one is how well it preforms at the edges. By swinging the front and racking out to get it in focus you can see it clearly. Usually what happens at the edges is color fringing. When I got my prized Gold Ring Dagor I was delighted to discover that there was no focus shift at all, and more, the lens appeared to be apochromatically corrected right out to the edge of the field, which was a massive 85 degrees. No color fringing. BTW, 85 degrees is what an Angulon will give you so the 165 Dagor will cover 8x10, a valuable lens.

  7. #57
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,855
    Images
    32
    I have a 10 3/4" that came off of an 18x24" process camera. I'd be willing to swap for a Mamiya C-330. Its that or I build a LF camera to use it with.

    Rick

  8. #58
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by renes View Post
    Angulons are supposed to be a Dagor-type lenses.
    How they differ in image character and quality?
    Do you see any differences?
    Angulons are reverse Dagors, and even if they were "normal" there is no reason why they would be similar to other Dagor-type lenses - as indeed the Dagor-type lenses are different.

    Angulond are optimised for larger coverage with less mechanical vignetting, thus less light fall-off. Dagors are better optimised for central sharpness.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Texas, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,885
    DAGOR users please don't be offended but I've never understood the advantage of using a lens with "less contrast" unless one is shooting transparencies. It seems to me the best results are attained with careful exposure and development. I would worry that the shadow detail (shadow contrast) would suffer from what is essentially fogging the film during exposure.

    Again, I intend no offense and I've seen zillions of gorgeous images shot with them many of them by you guys here on APUG. I'm just confused about the advantage of fogging the shadows rather than exposing more and developing less. But, I've never used one so I'm really only speculating.

  10. #60
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,215
    Images
    20
    I think Dagors actually have pretty good contrast, particularly if they're clean and coated. Even uncoated Dagors have reasonable contrast, as long as they are clean, and it's pretty common for older lenses to have some haze that is often cleanable. In their day this was one of their main attractions, because inherently faster or sharper designs, like the Planar, had too many glass-air surfaces to provide sufficient contrast before the introduction of lens coatings.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

Page 6 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