Crown Graphic with a special lens ( f9 Dagor )

<p>Yes Dan I had already found that comment about there only being 26 of the Carl Zeiss Jena 125mm f9 (like this one) produced. And we don't know that Goerz ever produced any 125mm f9's, so they really are pretty rare.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Arne Croell's excellent two part report on large format lenses from VEB Carl Zeiss Jena and Docter Optic in the July/August and September/October 2003 issues of View Camera magazine. In part 1 in the July/August issue his Table 6 lists "VEB Carl Zeiss Jena specialty lenses". Included here are a 125 mm f/9 Dagor and a 180 mm f/6,8 Dagor, barrel mounted only. Under <strong>remarks for the 125mm f/9 is the comment: "26 produced (some for planetarium use)"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm just glad I put it on my Crown so I could use it agin a few more times, then my estate can find a good home with lots of money, to pass it along in exchange for a huge donation. <strong>What I'm wondering now is if Santa is listening out there, and going to send me a box of 4x5 Ektar 100 and TMax 100 to use in it. </strong>My Beseler 45AF is begging for some real action....! And a good dusting !</p>

<p>At first glance "Burke and James Commercial Monorail" sounds like a futuristic transit venture lol, upon seeing it, it was confirmed that it is in fact a locomotive :D <br>

But a beautiful one, if you ask me!</p>

<p>Um, Cliff, your lens is pre-WW-II, VEB Carl Zeiss Jena is well post-WW-II. The post you found and quoted is nice but irrelevant. Now be a nice elderly gentleman and ask your question on the LF forum or send Arne and e-mail and ask him what Thiele has on pre-war 125/9 Dagors.</p>

<p>Dan, you sure say UM a lot. Why don't you be a kind old gentleman and ask him for me, then post it here. You could<strong> really </strong>be a kind old gentleman and send me those two boxes of film for Christmas.</p>

<p>Just saw some 6x9cm Panatomic-X listed on eBay. Slightly outdated, but tempting all the same.</p>

<p>Actually my local camera store may be getting in some 5x7" negative film and I may not have to try the paper negative, if I can mortgage the dog to buy some.</p>

<p>Cliff, I see that you broke down and asked the question on the LF board. Also that you haven't got a good answer yet. That, unfortunately, is the nature of bulletin boards. So, unfortunately, is the presence of unhelpful characters like Klaus.</p>

<p>I've broken down and sent Arne a PM via the LF forum asking him to respond. He's always responded when asked before, but since he travels it may take him a while. Be patient, the news will come.</p>

<p>I understand that you want to <strong>know</strong>. I've been in that position m'self. Unless you need to know about many Zeiss lenses you're probably better off waiting than spending money on Thiele's books.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>You are right Dan, People don't usually want to help the NEW GUY, and I had never registered there before. That's why I asked you to ask for me. Thanks also for the PM to Arne, looks like pay dirt.</p>

<p>After looking at all the websites and blogs about lenses, I see in EVERY instance a Dr. Klaus saying in essence, don't tell anybody anything, make them buy a book. He is pushing these books and posting the retail outlets for them everywhere. He obviously has a financial interest in them.</p>

<p>Cliff, most people on the LF site are very welcoming. </p>

<p>Klaus and I get on poorly. As you know, I criticize a lot. He doesn't like criticism. Before he launched his macro lenses site he asked me about my lens testing protocols. I told him. He told me about his. I pointed out some problems with his. He banished me to the outer darkness, where I still languish, for questioning him.</p>

<p>I doubt he has a financial interest in the books he directs people to. I also direct people to books, have no financial interest in them. One can learn more from most books than from short answers on a bulletin board.</p>

<p>I sort of respect Klaus for his site. It has raised demand for the lenses mentioned on it, enabled him to sell them at considerable profits to finance more acquisitions. That said, I don't find it very useful 'cos it doesn't address my questions. It basically names some lenses. Its nice to know that a lens exists, would be nicer to know whether its any good and its range of useful magnifications without getting it and testing it. </p>

<p>Anyway, I'm glad that Arne came through for you. He's quite a nice person, knows more than most of the rest of us put together.</p>

<p>The CZJ Dagor's f9.0 75mm and 100mm are known. Both produce very sharp and contrast image.<br>

I used the 75mm on Linhof Technika 4x5.</p><div></div>

<p>I'll bet that 75mm is nice on the 4x5. Do you have any pictures with it you could post? I guess I should post what information was listed in the infamous books. Here it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Arne Croell has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to " Your dagor was part of a series of 30, made in 1935 according to Thiele; it lists 1930 as the design date, so I assume Zeiss tweaked the original Goerz design somewhat. Altogether Thiele lists 405 units of this lens being produced between 1928 (design date 1928) and 1946."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I guess they were indeed produced in small batches. And were indeed "testing" the batches and tweeking the design somewhat. Whatever the case these lenses are very very good performers. But they needed three different expensive types of glass to make, and that glass became hard to acquire, I understand. Whatever the case these were discontinued, and whatever quantity is out there is all there will ever be.</p>

<p>I was also rather turned off by Carl Zeiss, having no apparent interest in the history of their lenses. They only care about selling you something that is currently produced. In other words <strong>money talks, and if you aren't buying we aren't interested in talking to you</strong>. Rather a sad commentary from one of the best lens manufacturing companies of all time.</p>

 

<p>Cliff, you wrote "But they needed three different expensive types of glass to make, and that glass became hard to acquire, I understand." This wasn't a problem until recently when new environmental regulations forced lens redesigns to use less, um, obnoxious glasses.</p>

<p>Just an opinion, but I think that what sealed f/9 Dagors' and classic f/6.3 4/4 double Gauss wide angle lenses' fates was the development of better lenses. Modern w/a lenses of the '60s, such as f/4.5 Biogons and f/8 Super Angulons, are just plain better, with less fall-off of illumination and less distortion. The latest most best wide angles for larger formats put <em>them</em> in the shade. Modern plasmat types killed f/6.8 Dagors.</p>

<p>This isn't to say that I'm anti-Dagor. I own a few Boyer Beryls, Dagors in all but name, and use some of them. But I don't need much coverage from them. There was a hilarious discussion of Dagors' coverage some years ago on the LF forum. If you want to read it, go there and search for "lousy Dagor."</p>

<p>A while ago Michael Kadillak investigated having a batch of really long really wide angle lenses for ultra large formats made. He consulted an optical engineer, suggested a Dagor type, was told "nowadays we can do <em>much</em> better than that." I think you may still be able to read about his adventure on, IIRC, APUG.org. He eventually abandoned the effort. The lenses weren't going to be inexpensive and it wasn't clear that enough could be sold ...</p>

<p>I understand your frustration with Zeiss.</p>

<p>Ralf, I'm sorry we managed not to connect at Second Sunday. I left around 10 am with a $10 400/6.3 Spiratone tele in hand. The newer one engraved "Pluracoat." I have an older one not so engraved, they're clearly not the same design or, probably, from the same maker. Maybe, weather permitting, in January. I'll keep going to the show until it or I die.</p>