G-Claron for enlarging???

**Paul Schilliger** · 24-Mar-2001, 11:32

OK, Bob- I have searched for that quick in the pants and accept it. But I don't think I have said something contrary to these assertions!? I think nobody is trying to mislead David. If he asked the qu estion, it is certainly not because he was having a hard time trying to decide between an ApoRodagon N and a G-Claron, was it?

**Bob Salomon** · 24-Mar-2001, 13:50

We don't know what he was deciding about. Since the uestion isn't specific.

Woukd it make an enlarging lens? Yes

Would it make a good enlarging lens? No when compared to an enlarging lens.

It's that simple.

**david clark** · 24-Mar-2001, 15:48

Hi All, and thanks to everyone who responded here, what I am deciding about is: I can get either a 210 or 240 G-Claron for a good price. I've been using a 135mm Kodak enlarging lens for 4*5, and I understand that might be a little small for 4*5. I'm enlarging 4*5 negs to no larger that 8*10 prints. I understand 180mm and up is best for 4*5. I don't know if G-Claron would be better than the Kodak enlarging lens I have now. I do B&W only. Now I can get the above lenses in barrel or I can have them mounted in Copal. Either way, I can use the lens on my Speed Graflex in barrel or any 4*5 if in shutter, and I may be able to use the 240mm on 8*10 camera.

I've heard some pretty good things about G-Claron as a shooting lens. I'm not so sure about the f22 rule for landscape, I mean how much can f16 or f11 degrade. My eyes aren't all that good anyway. For the front of my Graflex, these are nice small lenses where older long lenses for Graflex are big and heavy. From what I read here, this dual purpose use might be OK. I just don't do the kind of shooting that demands top of the line gear, on the other hand I didn't want to buy one not knowing that they couldn't be used for enlarging.

Thanks everyone, David

**Dan Kowalsky** · 24-Mar-2001, 20:31

Hi David, I cannot answer your question on the G-Claron. I must tell you though, there is no need to get into ROCKET SCIENCE over the minute differences over a Rodagon Rodenstock enlarging lens and process lens performances. What I can tell you is that there is a Nikor 260mm f10 process lens hanging proudly from my Omega F 10x10 enlarger. And it's lighting up the South Florida Everglades on paper. I used to have a f=360mm 1:6.8 Rodenstock Rodagon hanging in it's place, but no more. Why? cause I only have an eight foot ceiling. I like large prints. Now the Rodagon is in a lens board and shoots from my Master view, which in turn , joins my other lenses, and makes the images for the Nikor process to print on paper. Yes, I shoot Black & White and my point is that it is how it all ends up looking on paper to you, not the size of your wallet.

**Erik Ryberg** · 24-Mar-2001, 21:03

David,

How interesting. My first 4x5 enlarging lens was a 135 mm Kodak Ektanon, too. The results when I switched to the G-Claron were obvious. A big difference. No comparison. I often use it wide open or stopped down one stop, to f11. Maybe Bob can tell a difference between f11 and f22 on the G-Claron, but I can't.

I'm not sure, though, that your Speed Graphic has enough bellows extension for a 240 mm Claron; better check first. A 210 will probably just barely fit. The 240 might, I just think it is going to be close.

**Struan Gray** · 26-Mar-2001, 06:36

I hope Tuan won't mind my pointing out that Mr Cad in the UK (www.mrcad.co.uk) is currently (March 2001) having a clearance of used enlarging lenses, which includes some absolute bargains, particularly in the longer lengths. I have no connection with them, other than having happily bought stuff from them in the past. Worth struggling with their molasses-powered website.