165mm WA Dagor coverage

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by arrthur_nichols, Jul 16, 2003.

  1. Hi,
    Does anyone know what the real coverage of this lens is. I recently
    saw on purchased on the internet for a very large sum of money and it
    was advertised as covering 8x10. When I looked it up in a couple of
    charts it is listed as covering 279mm, which is less than 8x10.
    Can someone explain to me if the coverage on this lens is
    substantially more that stated in the charts and if this explains why
    this lens sells for such an exorbitant price.
    I am interested in finding a lightweight smallish lens for doing 4x10
    and for use a wide angle on my 8x10.
    Art Nichols
  2. My couple of Goerz catalogues list it variously as following (WA f8)

    6 1/2" lens. negative sizes it covers:

    f8: 5 1/2x 7 1/2

    f22: 7x9

    f45 8x10

    Maximum diagonal 15.5"

    and in another catalogue

    f8 70degrees 5 1/2 x 7 1/2

    f22 80 degrees 6 1/2 x 8 1/2

    f45 100 degrees 10x12

    the first set of figures are from 1941, the second set somewhat later and they are also refering to the Goerz "Golden" WA Dagor.

    I think there are quite a few on here use it for 8x10. I think it basically covers 8x10 somewhere around f22-f32 with more movements up to f45.

    If I came across one at a decent price I'd probably grab it...

    BTW - I'm a fan (mainly becasue I have one and got it cheap...) of the later coated versions (pink @ or Yellow dot) of the 159mm Wollensak 12.5 WA Anastigmat. It has similar or possibly slightly more coverage than those listed above for the Dagor. it seems pretty sharp to me, and works well for colour as well as B&W. They usualy seem to go for a pretty decent price and it's tiny/lightweight. If you search the archives there are some threads on it (there is also a 9.5 version). One in good condition is certainly a decent budget lens around the 150/165mm mark for 8x10 IMO.
  3. It will definitely cover 8x10 and 5x12. Mine covers both with just a little movement. It
    is a very sharp and small lens, thus the demand for them.

  4. Mine covers 8X10 but the corners do suffer some. A good trade off to the huge and expensive alternatives. Mine was just under $200. I wouldn't pay the "going" rate for same.
  5. "a lightweight smallish lens for doing 4x10
    and for use a wide angle on my 8x10" - that sounds like a Zeiss Protar Weitwinkel 14cm f:18... I happen to have one for sale ;)
  6. I previously owned the 6 1/2" WA Dagor. It does cover 8x10 with just a wee bit of
    movement, and as Jim noted, is slightly soft in the corners. It should cover 4x10 very
    nicely. They tend to sell however for crazy amounts, so if you are on a budget I would
    follow Tim's suggestion of a Wolly.
  7. I second the recommendation of the 159mm Wollensak 12.5, which I own and consider a terrific lens. At f45 it covers 8x10 with excellent corner sharpness for contact printing. These currently sell for 1/3 of what I see the similar WA Dagor go for.
  8. Although the WA Dagors do sell for a lot more than Wolly WA's I tend to find the Goerz product a bit sharper overall than the Wolly. Not NEARLY as much as price would indicate but thats what I've found. As soon as I get my darkroom up and running I plan on a serious lens test between multiple examples of various lenses just to lay it bare for my own conscience. If a Wolly WA turns out to be 'officially' sharper than a WA Dagor then anyone reading here will be the first to see the results.

    CP Goerz.
  9. My goerz lens literature from a 1967 Burke & James Catalog list coverage for a 165mm WA Dagor at 8" x 10". An alternative may be the 210mm Golden Dagor with coverage listed from 5" x 8" to 10" x 12". A nice lens in a small package. Does anyone with Goerz expertise know the difference between the normal Golden Dagors in the 150mm to 210mm range and the 165mm WA Dagor of similar vintage in comparing sharpness, contrast and tonal rendition?
  10. Thanks to all of you who answered my post, based on the feedback that I received here I went ahead and purchased one in an Ilex Universal dial set shutter that seems to work. The glass is excellent except for a few cleaning marks on the rear element. It cost me $400.00, so it seems like even if the shutter is not the greatest works for now and it might pay at some time to put it into a new shutter.
    Once again Thanks to all.
    Art Nichols
  11. Hello! Your lens are a so called wide angle "Golden" Dagor 100 degree lens and it would cover on f:8 something like 51/2x71/2 but coverige encreeses when stop down to f:32 up to 10x 12! They actually where mounted in Compur or Acme shutters!
    Yours Frankie!

Share This Page