Covering Power of the 270mm G-Claron

[alec4444]

I've heard that this lens will cover 11x14....fact or old wives tale? I think I'm still going to hold out for a 10" Wide Field Ektar, but while I'm waiting I thought I'd explore the other possibilities....

Thanks!
--A

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I sold my 270mm a long time back, but it did cover 11x14.

In my experience G-Clarons cover about 84 stopped way down, so that means that you should get an IC of bit over 19", more than enough for wiggle room.

[Hugo Zhang]

Alec,

My friend popped my 9 1/2" Dagor on his 11x14 the other day and it covered the gg nicely. I saw a few sold on the eeebay for as low as $200-300 for the last year.

Just a thought.

[John Kasaian]

Wide Field Ektar---big, heavy, fast f/6.3, Universal #5 shutter and single coated
G Claron---little, lightwieght, slow f/9, Copal #1 shutter and single coated
Both are great lenses.

[Oren Grad]

Either the 270 G-Claron or the 10" WFE should cover, though you'll likely have to stop down to f/45 in both cases. Ditto for the 10 3/4" Dagor and the 270 Computar.

[alec4444]

Thanks, Guys! Hugo, thanks for the tip on the Dagor, that's an interesting option.


Either the 270 G-Claron or the 10" WFE should cover, though you'll likely have to stop down to f/45 in both cases. Ditto for the 10 3/4" Dagor and the 270 Computar.

Oren, I'd have to stop way down on the 10" WFE? Really? I had this idea (dunno where it came from) that this lens would cover wide open with a bit of movement to boot. Is this based on trying it out or kodak's proclaimed specs?

If what you say is true it very much changes my perspective on which lens I'd choose in this focal length...

Thanks!
--A

[Oren Grad]

Oren, I'd have to stop way down on the 10" WFE? Really? I had this idea (dunno where it came from) that this lens would cover wide open with a bit of movement to boot. Is this based on trying it out or kodak's proclaimed specs?

Hmmm... Turns out that Kodak's specs appear to claim coverage wide open:

http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/kodakektar/ektar58.html

This is a surprise to me. My 10" WFE is on loan to somebody who has used it on 7x17. I will ask some questions and report back - stay tuned...

[Jim Galli]

There are Dagor's then there are Dagor's. My old timey Burke & James catalogs say a 9 1/2" will cover an 11X14 but I've never been able to do it. A 260mm Konica Hexanon GR II will but they don't go into a shutter neatly. I've used a 270 G-Claron on a 7X17 but it's tight.

[Oren Grad]

My 10" WFE is on loan to somebody who has used it on 7x17. I will ask some questions and report back - stay tuned...

OK, heard back. Two observations:

* The WFE really wants f/45 plus hyperfocal distance to cover out to the corners on 7x17. Note that 7x17 requires maybe half an inch more coverage than 11x14.

* Need to stop down to f/22 to tame spherical aberration.

These don't really resolve the question, but do confirm that it would be a close call at best.

[erie patsellis]

There are Dagor's then there are Dagor's. My old timey Burke & James catalogs say a 9 1/2" will cover an 11X14 but I've never been able to do it. A 260mm Konica Hexanon GR II will but they don't go into a shutter neatly. I've used a 270 G-Claron on a 7X17 but it's tight.

Hmm, I'll have to remember that Jim, as my 260 has amazed me on 8x10 so far.


erie

[alec4444]

OK, heard back. Two observations:

* The WFE really wants f/45 plus hyperfocal distance to cover out to the corners on 7x17. Note that 7x17 requires maybe half an inch more coverage than 11x14.

* Need to stop down to f/22 to tame spherical aberration.

These don't really resolve the question, but do confirm that it would be a close call at best.

Thanks Oren. That's a disappointment, really. I was hoping for something that bright for this focal length. Jim, thanks for the Konica tip. I've heard that the Dagors have widely varying image circles, thus I've avoided them. Sure, there's other qualities about them that may be great, but when buying online (typically with no money back guarantee) it's not a risk I'd afford.

Well, I've got time to consider this. The 5x7 outfit I bought wiped out my liquidity! :eek:

--A

[Oren Grad]

Alec -

Just to be clear, you should certainly be able to cover 11x14 with the WFE. I'd just be surprised if the lens could meet your stated criterion, which was to be able to do it wide open, with room for movement.

If you want something wide, bright, crisp and clear with room for movement on 11x14 at middling apertures, save your pennies for a 300 Apo-Sironar-W. ;) Keep eating your Wheaties, though - it's bigger and heavier than the WFE.

[alec4444]

Thanks, Oren. Just thought I had it all figured out. I have the 450 Nikkor M, the 355 Claron, and the 180mm Protar V. Was going to add the 10" WFE and the 210mm Angulon (and maybe something in the 600 - 800mm range for kicks) and call it a day. That would give me a bunch of focal lengths that would not only cover my 11x14 but also be useful on the new 5x7.

With a 355 Claron, would the 300 Apo-Sironar W be compelling? I'm still thinking of the WFE.....it just doesn't get me as warm and fuzzy as I once was about it! :)

Cheers!
--A

[Oren Grad]

With a 355 Claron, would the 300 Apo-Sironar W be compelling?

Depends what you like.

For my taste, 300 does give a distinctly different spatial feel from 360 (which is my "normal" for 11x14). But the main reason to go for a 300 Apo-W rather than the 10" WFE or one of the 270s, apart from the coverage, is that the Apo-W delivers a modern, ultra-crisp, ultra-refined look. If that's not a consideration (or if that's a drawback - some people don't like it) and you don't mind the tighter coverage of the other designs, by all means go for something smaller/lighter/cheaper.

BTW, of the other lenses mentioned, conceivably the 270 Computar would have some room for movement on 11x14 when stopped way down. I know, very hard to find.

[Don Hutton]

The computar 270mm has a lot off room for movement on 11x14. The 240mm computar has about an inch of surplus image circle focussed at infinity - quite a bit more if you use a little hyperfocal etc. when needed. It's by far my favourite wide angle on 11x14. The 305 computar will give you more movement than most 11x14cameras have.... Who knows how much you'd have to pay for any of the three - the last 305mm in a shutter on Ebay went for $1750 (probably a pretty good deal with hindsight); and a 270mm in a barrel went for $1037 a little while ago. They are truly unique.

[Steve Hamley]

Don,

Just for the record, I am the one who bought the 270 mm Computar. It was a carefully considered purchase for the 8x20. The 270 mm Computar is the shortest easily obtainable (and I use that phrase with some reserve) lens that will cover 8x20. The only other option I'm aware of is a 10-3/4" Gundlach WA, which is even more rare. Tim Sharkey has a Gundlach WA which he said he is multicoating, but the price, if he decided to part with it, would be upward of $2,500.

Given that the 270 mm Computar is (single) coated, sharp, small, screws into a shutter I already have (Copal 3s), and uses standard filters, the decision was made.

BTW, I would have much preferred spending about $250 for it like the new-in-box 240 mm Computar I bought before the word got out. But the 240 mm won't quite cut the mustard on 8x20.

I do have a Konica 310 mm f:9 in barrel (not the 300 mm) which would take custom-mounting in a #4 shutter or larger, has no filter threads at all, but will cover 8x20 sharply. By the time I got it into a properly serviced shutter, I'd have as much or more than the Computar. I may eventually mount this lens in a #4 or #5 shutter when one comes along and I have time and money to do so. BTW, I paid about $75 for this lens and it appears to be new/never used. So you can find ULF lenses that won't break the bank at least on initial purchase.

Steve

[Dave Wooten]

240 f/9 computar
305 f/9 G Claron
300 f/9 Nikor M