Golden Dagor 12 inch F6.8

Can a Golden Dagore produce good images on a 4 x 5 camera such as an Ebony ?

I love vintage glass and have a 250mm Rodenstock Imagon right now. Is the Dagore as good as they said , good color is important and vintage lenses can help create a signature. Brand.

I am new to LF photography. Can anyone help me in the selection of the Dagore lenses ? Thanks!

Usable? Yes. Amazing? Not everyone agrees.

Chrise, Dagors are not particularly vintage.

You've asked a couple of short questions that require a book length answer. Or several. Buy the book. Or books. Here is a link https://1drv.ms/b/s!AggQfcczvHGNkGG_P2z8Qiyc8Qo- to a list of links to many kinds of information about, mainly, LF photography. It includes recommendations of books on LF photography. Go there, select a book or books, read it or them.

The Dagor design dates from before lens coating was invented. It consists of two groups of 3 cemented elements, leaving only 4 air-glass surfaces. As such it had low flare and excellent contrast for a lens of its time.

Those genuinely vintage Doppel-Anastigmat Dagors I've used have had very good image quality on B&W film. I've never used one for colour work, and the ones I've used have been much shorter than 12" focal length. I would expect the resolution of the lens to decrease as focal length increases.

The 'Golden' Dagor isn't vintage. It's a recent resurrection of the original Goerz design and has AR coatings. Whether it follows the original design exactly I have no idea. It's very overpriced IMO, compared to more recent Plasmat designs that perform as well or better.

As Dann says, the history of this lens is complex; starting with C.P.Goerz in around 1888, and finishing with American Optical/Goerz, via absorption of C.P.Goerz into Zeiss Ikon, Germany in 1926.

If you're expecting a distinctive 'look' from a Dagor, I think you'll be severely disappointed. There's no striking characteristic of my Dagor negatives that sets them apart from those taken with a Rodenstock Sironar or W-Nikkor.

The Dagor design dates from before lens coating was invented. It consists of two groups of 3 cemented elements, leaving only 4 air-glass surfaces. As such it had low flare and excellent contrast for a lens of its time.

 

Those genuinely vintage Doppel-Anastigmat Dagors I've used have had very good image quality on B&W film. I've never used one for colour work, and the ones I've used have been much shorter than 12" focal length. I would expect the resolution of the lens to decrease as focal length increases.

 

The 'Golden' Dagor isn't vintage. It's a recent resurrection of the original Goerz design and has AR coatings. Whether it follows the original design exactly I have no idea. It's very overpriced IMO, compared to more recent Plasmat designs that perform as well or better.

 

As Dann says, the history of this lens is complex; starting with C.P.Goerz in around 1888, and finishing with American Optical/Goerz, via absorption of C.P.Goerz into Zeiss Ikon, Germany in 1926.

 

If you're expecting a distinctive 'look' from a Dagor, I think you'll be severely disappointed. There's no striking characteristic of my Dagor negatives that sets them apart from those taken with a Rodenstock Sironar or W-Nikkor.

And ending with Schneider!

The 'Golden' Dagor isn't vintage. It's a recent resurrection of the original Goerz design and has AR coatings. Whether it follows the original design exactly I have no idea. It's very overpriced IMO, compared to more recent Plasmat designs that perform as well or better.

RJ, you is a furriner, UK type I b'lieve. As such you're not well placed to follow the twists and turns of the corporate histories and product slates of amurrican lens makers such as C. P. Goerz American Optical Company (not to be confused with American Optical Company) and its successors. Goerz American and successors made Dagors from the beginning to the end when, as Bob mentioned, Schneider, a German firm, owned the name, trademarks, ...

I'm sure that the Dagor design was recomputed many times from beginning to end. Towards the end Goerz, still under American ownership, sold the same old Dagors as Golden Dagors. See, e.g., Pacific Rim Camera Reference Library, look at the 6/59 catalog. Read the over-the-top marketing fluff in the catalog. Goerz When Schneider took over Goerz, they continued the Golden Dagor line for a while, subcontracted manufacture to Kern. It isn't clear when Goerz started coating their lenses, they should have started in the late '40s like everyone else, but Schneider's Kern Golden Dagors are coated and are said by some users to be too contrasty. Point is, the Golden Dagor isn't a resurrection. Its the same old thing.

I don't have any Dagors (so-badged) may by any of the Goerz companies. My 45/9 Carl Zeiss Jena Goerz Dagor, computed after CZJ took over Goerz (German, not American) is an ok little lens. My coated Boyer Beryls, all Dagor clones if not outright copies, are all very good. So are my f/14 SOM Berthiot Perigraphes, extreme wide angle Dagor types. Many other makers made Dagor types.

"As such you're not well placed to follow the twists and turns of the corporate histories and product slates of amurrican lens makers such as C. P. Goerz American Optical Company (not to be confused with American Optical Company) and its successors."

- Agreed Dan, I'm not well-placed.

And not too much interested either in following the trading of badges, proprietary names, manufacturing and marketing rights, etc. You can't stick those on the front of a camera, nor simulate and tweak their performance on a computer.

"As such you're not well placed to follow the twists and turns of the corporate histories and product slates of amurrican lens makers such as C. P. Goerz American Optical Company (not to be confused with American Optical Company) and its successors."

 

- Agreed Dan, I'm not well-placed.

And not too much interested either in following the trading of badges, proprietary names, manufacturing and marketing rights, etc. You can't stick those on the front of a camera, nor simulate and tweak their performance on a computer.

Agreed. The only time that nonsense matters is when reality, i.e., what the products can do and how well they do it, changes. For all practical purposes, a Dagor is a Dagor is a Dagor. Coating makes a difference, but not a major one. The one exception is that f/9 and f/10 wide angle Dagors have more coverage than regular f/6.8ers and f/7.7ers.