165mm Angulon or 165 WA Dagor ???

I have choice between these two lenses. What are the differences and

pros and cons of each. The coverage seems to be about the same with

the nod going to the Angulon. The Angulon is perhaps easier to focus

because of the F6.8. I will be using it on my 8x10, 4x5 and for 4x10.

Thanks Art Nichols

Arthur,

I may be wrong but I think the Dagor has a little more coverage. I have done

a lot of work with it -- several books, and prints up to 30x40, and it is a good

lens. Unless you are careful you can have some blurriness in the corners,

but they are very smooth. The Angulons in fact have a similar look -- but I

think in general the Dagor has an edge. My main WA now is a 180 Zeiss

Jena WA Dagor, which covers in spades and is very sharp indeed.,but they

are very hard to find and not cheap. The great advantage of al these lenses is

their portability -- with a Grandagon or Super Angulon, you can't put them in

your bag and still walk around.

"The vignetting problem (WA Dagor) was avoided in the wide-angle Schneider angulon lens of 1930 by making the outer surfaces decidedly larger than the diameter of the axial beam -A History of the Photographic Lens - Rudolph Kingslake"

In past years, I've tried 2 Red Dot 165mm WA Dagors. Kept them for a week after seeing the results on my 8x10.

Bought a 165mm Angulon (coated) and never looked back. Don't get me wrong as I have 3 symmetrical Dagors (Red Dot and Gold Rim) (150, 210, and 305) and love them, but not the wide angle version.

Tito,

Thankyou for that --it's good to learn something. My main experience with

the Angulon was a 120 on 5x7, and there was absolutely no problem there.