Dogmar and Eurynar.

[Peter Yeti]

I like your test shot and it shows, as far as the limited resolution allows, that this is a quite good lens. The big flare spot on the right edge puzzles me a bit because the flare from the other light spots in the picture is very different. Could there be a different cause then lens construction? Maybe a rain drop/snow flake on the lens?

Testing lenses can be a good way to motivate oneself and get back into the creative process. And you could provide very helpful information for the community, making it doubly rewarding. So, go for it, best shooting side by side with the lenses to be compared.

I have a number of dialytes and they all are very high in resolution. So, you can expect the same from your Dogmar and Eurynar. The problems with lens flare were solved with different success by the various makers and often is less bad than generally assumed. I use a couple of Steinheil Unofokals, which I read were regarded to be the best (at least on the old continent). They are indeed very good and cause little trouble. The Dogmar was also highly esteemed and had the reputation of showing particularly good contrast and little flare for a dialyte, iirc. I haven't read this about the Eurynar and would be slightly surprised if it was up to par. But I've also read that people like the special characteristics of an Eurynar. Of course, this often points to lens aberrations (maybe the kind we want).

So, I'm looking forward to your test results.

Peter

P.s.: I really like the new Adox CHS II 100 film, much better than the old, dirty efke stuff. I use it with Pyrocat HD and it works great.

[J. Patric Dahlen]

I like your test shot and it shows, as far as the limited resolution allows, that this is a quite good lens. The big flare spot on the right edge puzzles me a bit because the flare from the other light spots in the picture is very different. Could there be a different cause then lens construction? Maybe a rain drop/snow flake on the lens?

I'm not sure. It wasn't snowing. It could be the angle the light was coming from.

I use a couple of Steinheil Unofokals, which I read were regarded to be the best (at least on the old continent). They are indeed very good and cause little trouble. The Dogmar was also highly esteemed and had the reputation of showing particularly good contrast and little flare for a dialyte, iirc. I haven't read this about the Eurynar and would be slightly surprised if it was up to par. But I've also read that people like the special characteristics of an Eurynar. Of course, this often points to lens aberrations (maybe the kind we want).

I have two Unofokals and I've tested one of them, and it was "ok" but not better than a Tessar/Skopar. If I remember correctly, the Unofokal is fully symmetrical, but the Dogmar was tweaked a bit more to give better results at infinity?

P.s.: I really like the new Adox CHS II 100 film, much better than the old, dirty efke stuff. I use it with Pyrocat HD and it works great.

Sounds promising. I won't miss the Efke pinholes and scratches. One thing I liked with Efke 100, however, was that it could handle over/under exposure/development very well. It makes me wonder if it had a double-layer emulsion instead of a single thin one like the 25 and 50 films. Does the CHS II 100 behave in a similar way?

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Nice test shot!

At four, my kids liked to look at the upside down image on the groundglass. For a few seconds anyway. :-)

My nephew likes to press the button to open my Zeiss Ercona II folder. I tried to explain to him how the camera works, but the button was more interesting. His 1½ year old sister likes my empty pipe tobacco tins. They are mobile phones to her.

[Peter Yeti]

Patric,

I think for us photographers it is very difficult if not impossible to judge the quality of a lens by scientific standards. So, a lot of our judgements are also personal preferences or even beliefs. On the other hand, what really counts are our personal preferences, aren't they?

I never compared a Tessar directly with an Unofokal because I use them for different things. Tessars are really very sharp lenses in the centre and very good (for the time, say first half of 20th century) at infinity. I personally don't like them too much for close-up work. That's where I appreciate the strengths of the dialytes like the Unofokal. In my experience they are up to par when you use them like this. The weak point of the Tessar is the rather limited image angle. I don't have a Skopar but an Apo-Skopar, which is a very good process lens, indeed. I have direct comparisons between it and an Apo-Ronar (dialyte design) but not an Unofokal. The Apo-Ronar is a tad bit better in my opinion but it's also a good 30 years younger than the Apo-Skopar. Also, these lenses are single and multi-coated, respectively, making a comparison and transfer to the old uncoated lenses even more problematic. And finally, I usually use my dialytes under controlled lighting in the studio, making it easy to reduce flare if I want.

But honestly, the lenses I like most for far an close-ups are Dagors. Are they better than a Tessar or a Unofokal? If you looked at any kind of test chart the answer certainly would be NO. If I look at one of my premium prints, I would say DEFINITELY YES. The character counts in my opinion. All these lenses have their assets and strength and it is fun to utilize them at their best. So, I only can encourage you once more to experiment with your lenses to learn their strengths and weak points and then use them to their best. Only be aware that you might be the only one noticing the subtle differences, especially if others only see your work on the internet.

Regarding the old Adox CHS, I was so pissed off by the many defects that I once talked to Mirko Bodekker, who runs Adox, about it. I tried to make him understand that the poor quality control ruins his reputation worldwide, where at least the market for sheet film is, which is certainly not in Germany. He explained to me that the QC would be possible but would cost a fortune. He must have thought this over again after efke croaked and decided to produce a new premium film that is produced in Germany by former Agfa engineers and also QCed in Germany by Adox. I haven't found a defect of the new film, yet, and I'm very happy about that. Thanks, Mirko!!! Of course he was right about the costs and so the price almost doubled. Fair enough, it's a good film with a kind of unique character, very old school. It is still a single-layer thin film design with a mixture of two emulsions like the original Adox formula, if I understood this right. They tried to match the spectral sensitivity as closely as possible to the original. A further problem is that many of the original sensitizers are not allowed anymore and they had to look for appropriate substitutes. I think they succeeded very well.
You ask about the tolerance w.r.t. exposure/development. Adox claims it's great like the old film but I can't tell because I usually work with very exacting standards regarding both. What I can say is that the reciprocity failure improved and now is quite normal, comparable to Ilford's FP4+. I think, if you liked the old Adox you will absolutely love the new one, it's a great film and I hope it will last!

Peter

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Patric,

I think for us photographers it is very difficult if not impossible to judge the quality of a lens by scientific standards. So, a lot of our judgements are also personal preferences or even beliefs. On the other hand, what really counts are our personal preferences, aren't they?

But honestly, the lenses I like most for far an close-ups are Dagors. Are they better than a Tessar or a Unofokal? If you looked at any kind of test chart the answer certainly would be NO. If I look at one of my premium prints, I would say DEFINITELY YES. The character counts in my opinion. All these lenses have their assets and strength and it is fun to utilize them at their best. So, I only can encourage you once more to experiment with your lenses to learn their strengths and weak points and then use them to their best. Only be aware that you might be the only one noticing the subtle differences, especially if others only see your work on the internet.

True!

I've been collecting and using Rollei TLR's for 25 years, and I know how they perform. The lenses have different characters, and the übersharp 3,5 Planar isn't for every occasion. A wide open uncoated Triotar is sometimes better. Tessar is "fine" for all formats, but can be boring compared to a Heliar or Dagor. For a long time I stopped down the lenses to their "optimum aperture", but was surprised in a good way to learn that the aberrations wide open could add something really nice on certain occasions.

About Adox CHS II, that sounds really good! I will order more and also in 135 if I'm happy with it in 9x12, and wish it will come in 120 and 127.

When I tested the Efke 100 (CHS) and Agfa APX 100 in 120, to find the correct development time in, I think it was Agfa 17, it was easy to see for which exposure the time was spot on. Only one frame looked normal, the others over and under. But the differences between the Efke frames were much more subtle, and that can be a very good thing, not only for simple box cameras, but also if you don't have time to pick up the exposure meter all the time when shooting on the street or similar. It's of course different when shooting LF and take time to get everything right. But I'm sure the tolerances have some positive effects on the tonal range.

[IanG]

I have the same pair of lenses and haven't tried either yet. I'm fairly sure my Dopp Anastigmat f6.3 13.5 Goerz-Ihagee is the same as the Dogmar, it's a Dialyte, interestingly the two lens barrels have identical Serial Nos. It's a very small light lens I guess eventually I'll fit it to my 2nd 9x12 Patent Etui which came with no lens/shutter.

My 13.5cm Eurynar is fitted to a 9x12 Orionwerk camera, it's in a significantly larger Compur shutter but is still a thin lens, at some point someone replaced the bellows on the camera which are a bit short so I need to make a new set ideally.



At the same time I ought to test another Dialyte a Kodak Anastigmat f7,7 170 in a Velosto (Optimo) shutter, I really like my 203mm f7.7 Ektars.

I've used EFKE film since the early 1970's and never had quality issues, I still have some in Quarter plate, 5x4 and 10x8.

Ian

[J. Patric Dahlen]

I have the same pair of lenses and haven't tried either yet. I'm fairly sure my Dopp Anastigmat f6.3 13.5 Goerz-Ihagee is the same as the Dogmar, it's a Dialyte, interestingly the two lens barrels have identical Serial Nos. It's a very small light lens I guess eventually I'll fit it to my 2nd 9x12 Patent Etui which came with no lens/shutter.

Interesting. Goerz made many dialytes, and the 6,3 Dogmar was only in production for a few years during WWI. I think it's more likely that it's a Tenastigmat, similar to the Syntor, and it came in 6,3. It should be more symmetric than the Dogmar.

My 13.5cm Eurynar is fitted to a 9x12 Orionwerk camera, it's in a significantly larger Compur shutter but is still a thin lens, at some point someone replaced the bellows on the camera which are a bit short so I need to make a new set ideally.

It looks like mine. It's handy that it can take 37mm push-on filters and hood.

At the same time I ought to test another Dialyte a Kodak Anastigmat f7,7 170 in a Velosto (Optimo) shutter, I really like my 203mm f7.7 Ektars.

I've used EFKE film since the early 1970's and never had quality issues, I still have some in Quarter plate, 5x4 and 10x8.

Sounds like an interesting project there.

The last time I used Efke was a roll of 127. I used water as stop, but I still got pinholes, and a a big one in the face of my father whom I took a portrait of, and that made the negative unusable.

[IanG]

Interesting. Goerz made many dialytes, and the 6,3 Dogmar was only in production for a few years during WWI. I think it's more likely that it's a Tenastigmat, similar to the Syntor, and it came in 6,3. It should be more symmetric than the Dogmar.

Goerz were selling their own cameras with f6.3 Dogmars up until their merger with Zeiss.



Looking at the prices of the lenses alone £9 1s for a 135mm f4.5 Dogmar and £7 1s for a 135mm f6.3 Dogmar and then prices of Goerz cameras with these lenses, and also Dagors and Tenastigmats it's obvious the Tenastigmat is a very cheap lens, it's the cheapest lens available with some of Goerz's Quarter plate/9x12 cameras.

The Dopp.Anasigmat Goerz-Ihagee f6.3 is the top of the range lens on some Ihagee models, the cheaper lenses being a Trioplan or 3 different Veraplan's f6.8, f5.4 or f4.5, on other cameras with more features I hagee offer the Dagor & f6.8 Dogmar.

Could you post an image of your 135mm f6.3 Dogmar.

Ian

[J. Patric Dahlen]

Interesting. I didn't know the 6,3 version was in production that long. The "Lens Collector's Vade Mecum" calls it short lived, and the few I've seen have all been from the 1910's.

Here's mine: