PDA

View Full Version : G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances



turtle
2-Mar-2012, 09:44
OK, so we all know G Clarons are great close up and fine at infinity as long as they are stopped well down to F22 or beyond...

.... but what about at medium distances, such as 6-20 feet? Can one stop down less and still get very sharp results? I'm in the process of getting various bits of kit out to Kabul for a project which will be shot in this 'medium' distance range and if I can get great performance out of a G claron at F11-F16 then I will plan on bringing out my G clarons. If not, I will search out a bargain 210 f5.6/250 f 6.3 plasmat.

I'm asking as it will be to months before I can get my hands on my G clarons, but if they are not going to work well at well under F22, then I would rather start looking for something more suitable now.

I am ashamed to admit my G-Clarons have only been used at infinity ;)

John Kasaian
2-Mar-2012, 10:09
My 240mm G Claron likes f/32. I've told it many times that if it would only consent to f/64, we'd be in the "in" club but it obstinately insists it is a f/32 lens and wants absolutely nothing to do with f/64.
I've argued
that none of my Ektars go to f/64 but the smart mouth G Claron tells me it wants none of my guff and to talk to the Dagor and Artar if I want f/64.;)

turtle
2-Mar-2012, 10:16
So John, if you mention F11 or F16 at medium distances your 240 G Claron wants none of it?

Dan Fromm
2-Mar-2012, 10:24
It depends on how much coverage you want.

The G-Clarons I've had were fine centrally wide open. Their coverage grows, i.e., image quality at the edges of the field improves, on stopping down. So it really depends on which focal length(s) you want to use and what format you're shooting.

The G-Clarons I've had were fine at all distances. Near, middle, far. They're good and useful lenses.

All this is true of faster plasmats too, at least from around 1:10 to infinity. And of dagors of all speeds.

turtle
2-Mar-2012, 10:43
I'll be shooting 5x7 and have available 210, 240 and 305 G clarons.

Peter Gomena
2-Mar-2012, 11:06
My 305 G-Claron seems to be sharpest from f/16 on. That's fine with me because I almost never use a view camera lens at less than f/22. Just the way I am.

Peter Gomena

Dan Fromm
2-Mar-2012, 12:16
I'll be shooting 5x7 and have available 210, 240 and 305 G clarons.

f/16 on 5x7 shouldn't be a stretch for any of them, f/11 might be for the 210.

Why don't you try them out and see whether they'll do? You have them and you know the level of quality you want to attain.

Drew Wiley
2-Mar-2012, 12:36
Depends on your focal length and coverage relative to format. For example, I generally need to stop down my 250G using 8X10 film with movements simply to get the corners sharp. The same film on 4X5 works just as good as any plastmat I have ever used at typical apertures, regardless of subject distance. I rarely shoot wider than f/22, but f/16 would be just fine, maybe f/11. The bigger problem than the optics is the fact that film in the holder itself is not perfectlyflat, so a bit more depth of field helps in this respect too.
I just wouldn't worry about it unless you're trying to shoot the thing wide open.

turtle
2-Mar-2012, 14:01
OK, interesting. Looks like the G-Clarons will be fine, or good enough.

Drew Wiley
2-Mar-2012, 14:41
I wouldn't call G-Clarons just "good enough". They're better than the general-purpose plasmats I've used. In fact, when I asked Schneider why they discontinued making dagors, they told me it was because the G-Claron line was superior on every count, even
though it was never widely marketed as a general-purpose lens (this conversation obviously excluded the fact that the Kern dagor has a different look than the G, which is
very desirable in its own right). Of course, I'm referring to late G-Clarons in shutter, not
to WA or repro versions, or older formulas. People who use these lenses understand their
real worth.

turtle
2-Mar-2012, 23:48
Drew,

I do own them, use them and understand their real worth, only I have not used them at middle apertures and middle distances, hence the question. One frequently hears discussion of their brilliance at close range, and at distance stopped down, but rarely for the bit 'in between.' For landscape work, they are remarkable and you can add about 80mm of IC to the 210mm at F32 to start with (compared to published specs). I also own a 300 f9 Geronar and wondered, if like that lens, small apertures are necessary for good performance, regardless of distance. I know the Geronar is a triplet, but wondered if the small aperture requirement on the G Clarons was required to get over the correction for macro focus range they were presumably originally designed for. What I am hearing here suggests stopping down is partly about coverage and also partly about optimised distance, although the both are likely to be less of an issue with my intended project application. It may turn out that they perform as well as a regular f5.6 plasmat at these distances, or possibly not. I guess I will find out.




I wouldn't call G-Clarons just "good enough". They're better than the general-purpose plasmats I've used. In fact, when I asked Schneider why they discontinued making dagors, they told me it was because the G-Claron line was superior on every count, even
though it was never widely marketed as a general-purpose lens (this conversation obviously excluded the fact that the Kern dagor has a different look than the G, which is
very desirable in its own right). Of course, I'm referring to late G-Clarons in shutter, not
to WA or repro versions, or older formulas. People who use these lenses understand their
real worth.

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2012, 07:24
turtle, what part of "ask your lenses if they'll do what you need" don't you understand?

E. von Hoegh
3-Mar-2012, 08:30
Drew,

I do own them, use them and understand their real worth, only I have not used them at middle apertures and middle distances, hence the question. One frequently hears discussion of their brilliance at close range, and at distance stopped down, but rarely for the bit 'in between.' For landscape work, they are remarkable and you can add about 80mm of IC to the 210mm at F32 to start with (compared to published specs). I also own a 300 f9 Geronar and wondered, if like that lens, small apertures are necessary for good performance, regardless of distance. I know the Geronar is a triplet, but wondered if the small aperture requirement on the G Clarons was required to get over the correction for macro focus range they were presumably originally designed for. What I am hearing here suggests stopping down is partly about coverage and also partly about optimised distance, although the both are likely to be less of an issue with my intended project application. It may turn out that they perform as well as a regular f5.6 plasmat at these distances, or possibly not. I guess I will find out.

If a lens is "great" close up, and "very good" at distance, it will be somewhere between "great" and "very good" when used at distances between "close up" and "distance". (winking smiley) G-Clarons are superb period.

John Kasaian
3-Mar-2012, 08:44
After focus at f/9, it nearly always reverts to f/32.
It has a mind of it's own, I'm tellin' you ;)

turtle
3-Mar-2012, 11:50
turtle, what part of "ask your lenses if they'll do what you need" don't you understand?

Dan, Your quoted comment could mean lots of things. It does not plainly mean anything in particular!

turtle
3-Mar-2012, 11:53
If a lens is "great" close up, and "very good" at distance, it will be somewhere between "great" and "very good" when used at distances between "close up" and "distance". (winking smiley) G-Clarons are superb period.

Sure, but the aperture is the other dimension. I have never used my G clarons at less than F22 at less than landscape distances, hence the question of F11-16 at middle distance. Distance is only half the equation and it is only this half you are addressing.

The question is already answered and current responses are going round in circles based on half reading the original question it seems.

Dan Fromm
3-Mar-2012, 12:24
Dan, Your quoted comment could mean lots of things. It does not plainly mean anything in particular!turtle, it means that you haven't taken on board the idea of doing your own testing. If you want to know whether your lenses are good enough to use as you want to use them, ask them, don't ask us. We don't have your lenses or your standards.

turtle
3-Mar-2012, 13:14
Sure Dan, but I do value comment and opinion from others, especially when a yardstick is used, like 'as good as my Symmar S' or 'sharper on centre than my Sironar N, but soft in the corners of 5x7 etc. From these comments, I can tease something useful, normally.

I will not be reunited with my G clarons for two months and then soon after will be back out in Afghanistan so I don't really have the luxury of testing and then scrambling to buy a plasmat inside of a week, having to check that it functions fine, get on a plane etc. Were it not tof this time issue, I would not have asked.

FWIW the original advice, largely on this forum, to buy into G Clarons for landscape work (with movement stopped down), was bang on the money!

Kimberly Anderson
3-Mar-2012, 16:50
I mainly shoot G-Clarons now. 150, 210, 240 & 355. I shoot lots of landscapes. I shoot lots of portraits. I shoot 5x7, 4x10 and 8x10. I like my G-Clarons.