Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: G Claron vs. a"normal" telephotos

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Posts
    26

    G Claron vs. a"normal" telephotos

    I'm thinking of getting a 270/300mm lense for 4x5. I was ready to settle on the G Claron but then did some checking on the Schneider web page. They say that t he G Clarons are optimized for 1:1 reproduction (macro - close up work) but can be use for infinity focus if stopped down to F22+.

    Does this mean the lense really doens't perform well at infinity focus as far as actually focusing sharply on a distant object and relys mainly on small aperatu re (F22+) depth of field to achieve sharpness? Intending to do only infinty foc us work (no macro/table top) and being a stickler for sharpness, would I be bett er off getting a "regular" 270/300 lens, like the Nikon M or one of the Rodnesto ck/Scheider F5.6 lenses?

    THX in advance,

    Todd

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    G Claron vs. a"normal" telephotos

    See WWW.WISNER.COM for numerous discussions of g-clarons, their light weight and their use at infinity. He's a proponent of these lenses. Check the Q&A board.

  3. #3

    G Claron vs. a"normal" telephotos

    The G-Clarons have a good reputation for performing at infinity. Here is my comparison of the 305 mm G-Claron with the 300 mm Nikkor-M:

    The similiarities: both are in Copal 1, both are f9, both do well at infinity, both have plenty of coverage for 4x5 (the 305 mm G-Claron has greater coverage and might be a better choice for 8x10). The differences: the Nikkor-M is designed for infinity and multicoated. The G-Claron is not. The Nikkor-M is cheaper (based on prices on B&H web site).

    For distant subjects and 4x5, each comparison is either a tie or the Nikkor-M is better. The biggest problem with Nikon large-format lenses seems to be spotty availability.

    The f5.6 offerings have lots of coverage (might make a difference for 8x10), but weigh and cost a lot more. In this focal length for 4x5, I don't find ground glass brightness to be a problem at f9.

  4. #4

    G Claron vs. a"normal" telephotos

    Something else to consider, aside from purely optical considerations.

    If you will be using this lens outdoors a lot, the extra "sail area" of 300mm of bellows is considerable, and quite a light breeze will shake even the sturdiest setup enough to ruin sharpness. A stronger wind can even push the bellows into the light path.

    There are long lenses available for large format which are of telephoto design, (Tele-Arton, Nikkor-T, etc.) which means that the bellows extension is much shorter than their focal length, a real advantage for outdoor work.

  5. #5

    G Claron vs. a"normal" telephotos

    Todd, If you have not already done so, you may want to review Thalman's, Sparks ' and Herman's comments in the equipment review section of this LF site. See th e following sections: A selection of modern lenses, Specific lenses: long for 4 x5, and More thoughts on selecting a long lens for 4x5. Good luck, Sergio.

Similar Threads

  1. Ross lens - telephotos
    By Michael Snyder in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25-Aug-2010, 18:29
  2. Camming telephotos for Technika
    By Ed Richards in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-Feb-2006, 07:47
  3. DOF Calculations for Telephotos
    By neil poulsen in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 30-Aug-2004, 10:22
  4. Repro-Claron vs. G-Claron
    By David Vickery in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 5-May-2002, 00:08
  5. G Claron vs Repro Claron
    By Ron_673 in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24-Feb-2000, 09:55

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •