Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
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.
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
turtle, what part of "ask your lenses if they'll do what you need" don't you understand?
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turtle
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.
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
After focus at f/9, it nearly always reverts to f/32.
It has a mind of it's own, I'm tellin' you ;)
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dan Fromm
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!
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
E. von Hoegh
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.
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turtle
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.
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
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!
Re: G-Clarons & Good Apertures for Medium distances
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.