Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak View Post
At one point or another we all have a tendency to get inspired by Mr. Dagor.

...

When I was recently working on a lens project with an optical physicist and mentioned the Dagor he looked back at me like he had just bitten into a lemon. "Surely we can do much better than that," he commented. He showed me the curves and pointed out the deficiencies of the design and we moved on. .. - there are many other alternatives that are much less costly and perform much better.

Cheers!
I'd have to add that Michael's optical physicist is ... sort of right. That's the problem when dealing with physicists and engineers, you only get a technical opinion. I feel safe saying that since I do have a degree in physics.

So let's have the optical physicist tackle all the criteria for which the Dagor is desirable, and not just the optimum optical performance. Here's what I'd ask the optical engineer to design:

It has to have the the same, or better, circle of illumination to 5 lpm (coverage) as the Dagor

It has to have the same, or better, circle of sharp coverage as the Dagor

It can't weigh any more than the Dagor

It can't cost any more than the comparable plasmat that replaced it.

I'd be interested if such a lens is possible. And it might very well be possible. I've always maintained that if Schneider made the Super Symmar XL series at f:6.8 to f:11 in more focal lengths (like the Dagor), there wouldn't be any discussion at all about Dagors, they'd all be sold.

Cheers, Steve