Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I just got my first Dagor, a 210mm, coated about 1949-1950. Since Dagor lenses are symmetrical, I guessed they would do macro well. The attached pictures are not macro--well, I had to back up 20 feet to do the shots here. I used a Canon 650D (crop) on the back of Speed Graphic for the images. Bear in mind that the little sensor is tiny compared to the image circle, which is spacious on 8x10 negatives, so in that sense these images are like 20x or 2000% enlargements already; only a very small part of the image (the center) is blown up for a picture.

They were shot on my covered north porch with morning backlight looking east. The flowers dominated the image, so I used the Canon metering on aperture preferred as follows. The first was f11, and it went about 1/8 and the second was f16 and gave 1/4 second shutter (all with cable release). ISO was 100. The third was a mistake--I set f22 but underexposed 2 stops (quite dark, but I show here the rescue in Photoshop to show latitude--still usable). The bokeh is promising (check #2). In Photoshop I just did the quick essentials for contrast and brightness; the second and third ones have a bit of sharpness added.

Two experiments remain: to show the image using only the rear cell (the lens is convertible), which may require a longer bellows camera; and to show true macro at 1:1. I might have to use a 4x5 with much longer bellows using Canon, but for 4x5 negatives it would only take about 16.5" for 1:1 macro, maybe 4 or 5 feet back.

Looks like the lens is a keeper, yes? I can see why people loved these lenses. The edges of the flowers are quite sharp and contrasty even so magnified (much more so if I made a 4x5 negative and scanned that full frame); yet there is a smoothness in the edges, which would be especially nice in portraits, even though these were stopped down. Portraits might be at f6.8, wide open (not used here). Here even the radically cropped image only begins to suffer when further magnified.

My own use will normally be to use b/w film 4x5 which I can quickly develop in daylight device, then scan for PhotoShop (to get really big files).

(Download)

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Beautiful result, Charles! You made the lens look good.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Its always fun to try the previously untried, or in the instance at hand, to see what results can be achieved when mating the 'classic' and the 'modern'. Quite a few UHHers --myself included-- like to do so "the easy way" by mating 'classic' (40's Summitars, various of the Soviet Era Helios's, some of the 70's Pentax's, etc, etc, etc) glass on our modern mirrorless bodies via easily obtained adapters, but I'm aware of only a few (Mr. Malarz? got your ears on?) who're doing it with view cam/digital body FrankenCamera setups. I say 'why not,' and kudos to you & have a blast.

Its difficult, though, --in this venue, on our viewer's end-- for us to intelligently comment, much less 'assess', these trial images you've posted. Realistically, only you would be able to do that. You've got your pre-reduced, pre-sharpened, pre-anythinged files, and we've only got what you'd posted -- the two thumbs and the one downloadable file. Consequently, what I'll next say could be accurate or it could be otherwise, and it'll be subjective at best.

Both of the thumb views appear to have a slight halo around the leaves. I might expect to see something like that as a result of using an uncoated lens while shooting essentially into the light (it is, after all, part of the sought after 'charm' of some classic lenses). But you mentioned your Dagor is coated so I'm left questioning whether that diffuse halo is instead a result of processing. Not having downloadable images to look more closely at, its hard for me to know. As well, none looks particularly sharp, at least not as sharp as you've described in words, so.....? The complication, it may be, is that we're not able to see your raw (in the sense of untouched rather than image file type), so were left with only guesses, some of which might not even apply.

Please don't take any of this as criticism; its not meant as such.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I meant to check the downloadable feature but forgot and did not feel like going back to change it. In this case, these pictures would be quickie tests, not finished products--I would make 4x5 negatives (20 times larger, and therefore sharper) and use those for pictures. The samples were likewise just for previews, so critical examination is not the point--those are not for printing (too small to enlarge much).

With strongly backlit subjects I typically tweak brightness, contrast, and sharpness just a bit for a more normal look, not so much for the lens as for the subject. I did not mess with background except to darken it by darkening the bright highlights.

MrPhotog

What are you using to scan your 4 x5 films?

For 1:1 macro, a true 210 mm lens would be extended 420 mm from the film or focal plane, and be 420 mm from the subject. Total distance of 840 mm ( very close to 33”) from camera’s focal plane. In practice that may be off a few mm, as the lenses were rarely exactly that nominal focal length.

In Imperial or US measure, at one time that lens would have been labeled as an 8-1/4” lens. They were the ‘normal’ lenses for 5x7 cameras, and nice portrait focal lengths on 4x5 format.

Using half of a truly symmetrical lens should give twice the focal length: 420 mm. For a true 1:1 macro setup you would have the focal plane 1680 mm from the subject, or 66” back. Not all ‘symmetrical’ lens designs were truly symmetrical. Some were close, but the front and back groups were different focal lengths. This gave three different focal lengths to use.

Your best optical quality should come from using the compete lens. The symmetrical design was based on the idea that any optical problems introduced by the front group would be cancelled out by the back group.

Despite the coating on the lens, use a deep lens shade.
And
Enjoy the lens.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Thanks. I have not started yet on this project, but I have an Epson V750-Pro flatbed which does well with 35mm slides, so 4x5 should be even better. For me it is a good flatbed scanner, but of course the sky is the limit in photography.

Yes, you are right on the bellows extensions. The Speed Graphic had no problem with this picture because the close-up effect was optical--that is, I photographed only an inch or so of the 20-square-inch image (4x5). The 20" image was not a close up itself, hence the extension was not needed. To do 4x5 macro, I will have to use my Toyo 4x5 and add a second bellows using a middle standard. That would give around 1000mm of extension. However, close-ups above 1:5 might work with the regular bellows on the longer Toyo 18" normal bellows. I think you miscalculated the 420mm Dagor single-cell; it focuses infinity at 420mm, and 1:1 at 840mm (not 1680mm). Mine is indeed labelled 8 1/4."

Have you or anyone else tried using one cell with the Fuji 240mm A lens (symmetrical dialyte lens? I never tried it because each cell has only two elements, so it cannot correct aberrations well, right? Might do soft portraits though (but why--at 480mm)? And yes, the Goerz single cell could not be as sharp as the whole lens.

MrPhotog

[quote=Charles 46277]

. . . I think you miscalculated the 420mm Dagor single-cell; it focuses infinity at 420mm, and 1:1 at 840mm (not 1680mm). Mine is indeed labelled 8 1/4.". . . [\quote]

I was figuring the distance from film plane (focal plane) to object at 1:1.

At 1:1, Distance from (optical) center of lens would be 2x focal length of lens to the object, and the same from center of lens to the film plane. Or 4x the focal length, thus 1680 mm. (Total working distance between the photographer and the rattlesnake being photographed is just 66”, too close for comfort!)

. . .Have you or anyone else tried using one cell with the Fuji 240mm A lens (symmetrical dialyte lens? I never tried it because each cell has only two elements, so it cannot correct aberrations well, right? Might do soft portraits though (but why--at 480mm)?
. . .

Well, they had to screw those sections into the shutter, so I guess you won’t do any damage unscrewing one section. I’d try using the front section.

—. —..—

If you have 18” and 1000 mm possible extension on the standard bellows, and with an extension, you can do 4x5 work at magnifications greater than 1:1 ( same size) with that 210 mm lens. And even more with the normal lens, should you have something near 135 mm.

Crank that 210 mm lens out 5 focal lengths (1050 mm) and you’ll have an image size 4 times as large as the original object. With 1000 mm extension being slightly under that, you would be just shy of that mark, somewhere around 3.7 X magnification.

Your working distance in front if the lens would be ( measured from optical center of lens) 210mm/3.7 plus 210 mm, or about 267 mm.

In these operating ranges it is sometimes advantageous to reverse the lens—rather simple with most view camera lens mounts, but then it is awkward to reach the controls.

With a 135 mm lens on a 1000 mm bellows you would get 6.4X magnification. On the standard 18” bellows you would get about 2.3X magnification.

There are a lot of problems to deal with when bellows are extended that long.

mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area

Nice set of pictures.
Mundy

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

[quote=MrPhotog]

I won't be using one cell of Dagor for macro, but the whole lens might get close. They advertised sharp pictures from any distance at the time, as well as sharp at any f-stop, which was not true of other designs. For macro I can always use the Fuji 240mm A (or just use the Canon with Macro lens).

I was surprised by your figures for calculating distance from film/sensor to subject--I never knew you could calculate that from focal length and extension.

Reversing a lens is not needed if they are symmetrical.

MrPhotog

There is a fixed ratio between image size, focal length, and distance, which is fairly easy to understand if you remember a few points.

A lens focused at infinity is as close to the focal plane as it is going to ever get. To focus on something closer than infinity ect you must increase the distance between the lens and focal plane. That amount of extension is equal to the focal length time the amount of minification. So, if a 10” object appears as a 1” image at the focal plane, it is 1/10 th life size ( the reproduction ratio is 1:10) and the lens is at at extension of its original focal length plus 1/10th of that amount. For a 210 mm fl lens that would be 210+21=231mm. With a 50 mm lens that would be 50+5=55 mm.

Staying with those two focal length lenses you can see that at half life size (1:2) the extension would be 210+105=315 mm and 50+25=75 mm.

And at 1:1, (same size) it is 210+210=420 and 50+50=100mm.

If you are used to 50mm macro lenses on 35 mm full-frame cameras, you'll remember that many only focused to 1:2 and used a 25 mm extension ring to get to 1:1.

On the other side of the lens, you can calculate image size and distance to the subject by using focal lengths as your units of measure, and add on 1 focal length. At infinity the calculations are meaningless, but they are useful for distances up to maybe 100 feet. So, at 1:1, you would be 1+1 focal length= 2 focal lengths from the lens to the subject. At 1:2. (Halfsize) you would be 1+2=3 focal lengths away.

For 1:10 reproduction, where the image is 1/10th the size of the object, the lens is 1+10=11 focal lengths away from the subject. Every time yo change the distance by 1focal length the reproduction ratio also changes by 1.

If I wanted to copy a 10”x15” document onto a 1”x1.5” piece of film, the lens center would be 11 focal lengths from the subject and it would be extended 1-1/10th focal lengths from the focal plane or film. Total distance from film to subject is then 12.1 focal lengths.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

MrP, that is all clear and well-explained, but one aspect remains a bit fuzzy. If I extend the bellows (or use tubes) to 2 times focal length of lens for 1:1 magnification, how does sensor size enter in? In one sense, it doesn't: a one inch moth is one inch across on the sensor or film, whatever its size (the format). In another sense, a one inch moth on a one inch sensor is much closer up than it is on a 4x5 inch negative. We think of macro as filling the frame, a relative aspect, as well as being a certain objective size... And filling a small sensor with a one inch moth does not give us as good a print on 16x20 paper (or screen) as filling a 4x5 film (or larger), which is a 4 inch moth on film.

Likewise, making a macro picture of a moth by cropping an image in one sense is macro, but the result is lower quality than enlarging the moth image in the camera by recording a bigger image. This is why a full frame camera can show better detail than a crop-sensor camera: the magnification is in the original file, not a cropped down file.

Kenneth Lee illustrates this with a 4x5 negative--a tiny part of the image (cropped) is as good as that same part shot full frame with smaller format (which is logical). He used a Nikon 610mm APO process lens on 4x5 on many incredibly sharp images (for other examples of his, click Photographs on the same web page below; he is also fond of Tessar lenses--well that 610 is a Tessar design). Here is an impressive example where a tiny part of the negative makes an excellent picture:

https://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/aponikkor610/Nikkor610Test.php

So that is the point of my venture back to 4x5 with digital elements. The press camera can work for many situations, but the view camera for careful composition is more gratifying. I am amateur, of course, so I am not driven by the same elements as a pro, such as efficiency of time and materials, or achieving somebody else's expectations.

mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area

Thanks for the information.
Mundy

MrPhotog

Yup. Sensor size doesn't matter at all. The lens, when in focus, will create an aerial image of a size that depends on the focal length of the lens. If your camera has a sensor or film that captures just a part of the image the rest is just excess photons bouncing around—which can sometimes create flare in the camera and degrade sharpness and contrast.

The opposite of what you describe is an effect I used to my advantage in 1973. I was using a 4x5 Speed Graphic to shoot high school basketball. I could use the entire image, which captured several players in action, or crop it down to the size of a 35 mm frame and have closeups of individuals.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

MrP, Ansel Adams complained that makers of view cameras continued to make bellows square the same size front and back, which is much larger chamber than a tapered bellows--creating more flare (even with flat black fabric). He also said it is surprising how much flare is allowed in box cameras (including SLRs of all sizes).

But regardless of that, there is loss of image quality from cropping, whether it is in an enlarger or in PhotoShop, etc. And there is loss in the camera if a small format is taken from a large lens image. The resolving power of the lens in an image circle does not change if only a small part of the image is used--good Dagor lenses have tested at resolving 61 lines per millimeter, which holds up to quite a lot of enlargement. Using my second test shot in the original post above, I cropped just a very tiny area to see if it held up. I did not tinker with it in PhotoShop (though the starting photo was adjusted a bit for brightness and contrast). Here below is that huge blow-up (perhaps 5% of the original digital image, even less of the lens image on 8x10).

This shows a great leeway for enlarging or cropping--more than I get with Canon lenses on this Rebel camera sensor. Two points are noticeable. First, the hairs on the little stems and leaves are clear. Second, note that the edges of the center leaf (and other things of course) are well defined--I call it sharp yet smooth. This is why the lens is good for portraits (whatever the cause in design). The edge of the white wrought iron rod behind the plants is not as sharp--it is behind the plane of focus, which shows at this high magnification (but does not show in the smaller magnification).

(Download)

User ID

You have hit the nail squarely on its head. The worshipful attitude toward “1:1 life size” is mostly ignorant parrot chatter. It can seem like it’s gospel cuz if you keep on asking parrots the same question you keep getting the same reply.

“1:1” is not any significant threshold nor the gateway to “true macro”. There was much disparaging talk a generation ago when many zooms that could reach 1:4 were labeled “macro”. But for the casual user of a 35mm film camera 1:4 really is life size, the same as using the built-in “double extension” bellows on a typical 4x5 press.

A contact print from the 4x5 at 1:1 has the same image size as most typical 4x6 snapshot prints from a 35mm camera at 1:4, cuz most 35mm snapshot prints are usually about a 4X enlargement.

Macro lenses are not defined by their magnification. Some have no focusing ability at all (note the Dagor). Their primary defining feature is that they are well corrected for very close distances. But *how* to achieve focusing to very close distances is entirely optional.