300mm fujinon C

[Jordan]

Is this lens like the G-clarons in the way that they are copy camera lenses? I have been using a 305mm g-claron and don't care for it at all, despite the praise they receive. I don't want another lens optimized for 1:1 and only single coated. I know the Fujinon C lenses are multi-coated, have great coverage, and relatively small. Please tell me more about them as I am quite interested. Thanks in advance.

Jordan

[Oren Grad]

Whether the Fujinon would be a good choice for you depends on what it is you don't like about the G-Claron. Can you be more specific?

[Mark Stahlke]

I have one of these little gems. It's very small - Copal 1, 250g, 52mm filters, 2 inches from lens cap to lens cap. It's multicoated, sharp and contrasty. The 380mm image circle will cover 8x10 nicely but I've only used it on 4x5. What's not to like?

It's one of my favorites. I keep it handcuffed to my wrist, drag it everywhere I go.

[Gary Tarbert]

So glad to hear that Mark i have just commited to one from Badgers .cheers Gary

[Joseph O'Neil]

Is this lens like the G-clarons in the way that they are copy camera lenses? I have been using a 305mm g-claron and don't care for it at all, despite the praise they receive.

-snip-

Just curious what you don't like about your G-claron? My 270mm g-claron is just about my favourite lens.
joe

[Jordan]

The things I don't like about the G-Claron are the way my prints end up looking. There is something off about the tonal range and deep shadows vs highlights. I know that some will say this is an exposure/development issue, but it's not. Plus, although some argue that this is a completely non-issue, but the images on a whole have a strange flatness to them (not in contrast, but in the depth of the image). I use the lens on 8x10. All you guys, especially Oren, always have really good answers and I really appreciate them, so thanks. I look forward to your guys assessment of my issues with the g-claron and whether the fujinon-c would be better.

[Nick_3536]

Two totally different designs. To the best of my memory outside of focal length they have nothing in common.

The Fuji-c is a tessar type like the Nikon M.

The Claron depending on vintage is likely a Plasmat type. I think -)

[David Karp]

The Fuji-c is a tessar type like the Nikon M.

A tessar type like the Nikkor M, Fujinon L, or Xenar has 4 elements in 3 groups. The Fujinon C is 4 elements in 4 groups. See http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/c.htm. Comparing the diagrams reproduced on Kerry's site and some of the books in my library, I think this makes the Fujinon a symmetrical design, a Celor. I think this makes the Fujinon C more like an APO Ronar.

Whether the design makes any difference in the final photo is for each photographer to decide.

[Joseph O'Neil]

The things I don't like about the G-Claron are the way my prints end up looking. There is something off about the tonal range and deep shadows vs highlights. I know that some will say this is an exposure/development issue, but it's not. Plus, although some argue that this is a completely non-issue, but the images on a whole have a strange flatness to them (not in contrast, but in the depth of the image).


Interesting - the things you don't like are kinda what appeal to me. :) But still, I think the issue you describe about tonal range can be extended towards German vs Japanese glass & lenses as a whole. Some American glass too - the tonality - for lack of better words is IMO different between my g-clarons and my RD artars.

Seeing what it is you are looking for, based on past examples (not that specific lens) I would try a Fujinon or even a RD artar of the right size.

Another thought too - just *pure* speculation on my part, but I've used both Agfapan and Fuji Neopan in the past, and those two sheet films have (or had ) very different "personalities" from each other. I sometimes wonder if the design of the lenses and film, even on a subconsious level incorporate a different philosophy on how an image should look from an aestheic point of view.

In any event, I agree with you about the "look" of the g-clarons that it is different, but disagree with you on the aesthetics. But then, my grandma was of good German stock, so maybe it's something genetic in my case.
:)

good luck
joe

[archivue]

for 8x10, i've found the apo sironar N to have a very nice "tonality" compare to G claron... but thay are huge piece of glass !
the apo sironar S are a little bit sharper, with even more coverage, but cost much more !

[Michael Kadillak]

The things I don't like about the G-Claron are the way my prints end up looking. There is something off about the tonal range and deep shadows vs highlights. I know that some will say this is an exposure/development issue, but it's not. Plus, although some argue that this is a completely non-issue, but the images on a whole have a strange flatness to them (not in contrast, but in the depth of the image). I use the lens on 8x10. All you guys, especially Oren, always have really good answers and I really appreciate them, so thanks. I look forward to your guys assessment of my issues with the g-claron and whether the fujinon-c would be better.

I can assure you that the G Claron are not the problem as they are consistently capable of a wide range of piss poor to visually stunning results depending upon how they are utilized. You must use a compendium or a very effective lens hood to prevent even a hint of lens flare. These must also be stopped down to at least f22 to mitigate coma but not excessively as diffraction can set in. Secondly, the choice of your developer and the shape of the H&D curve it generates is another variable that must be considered as a contributing factor to the prints that you are generating. In certain scenes with few shadows and consistent lighting TMY or FP4+ (in Pyrocat, DDX, T Max RS, D76 and others) and the linear straight line film curve does an excellent job with holding the tonilities. When heavy texture and shadows are present pyro does the trick but one must expose more than normal and possibly go N- to keep the shadows from getting to lifeless and dominating the scene. Evaluate your negatives carefully and you should be just fine.

Rarely have I found that a change in optics ever turned things around in the results department. You are using all modern offerings. Edward Weston had uncoated lenses that were as crude and as rudimentary as one could find. In fact I remember reading that he purchased some optics at pawn shops for a song and found a way to extract treasures from them. Save yourself a buy sell iteration that may very well be replicated with the lens that is supposed to solve your delima and stay the course. I bet that you will become a better photographer for it.

Just my $0.02

[archivue]

my $0.02...

if you can have good MC lens, it makes life easier !
is it important or not ? it first depends on your shooting style !

[Jordan]

The info so far has been very good. I know I can make good prints from the negatives I've made so far, but I just don't feel like slaving away at them when I already know I have made good negatives that print with far more ease. I don't want to be fiddling with new developers and development times and new films and whatnot when I already have had great luck with Tri-x and HC. I have gone the experimenting route before. Granted I am speaking from previous 4x5 experience. However, I was able to translate my formulas to 8x10 with a little modifying and make what appear to be as good negatives as possibles. You might be asking "if you are making such good negatives then why aren't they printing up the way you want them?"......... well that is just the thing. The shadow detail is there, the highlight detail is there, however to get them to print properly has been a total pain. I honestly suppose I believe a multi-coated lens designed for field work may be the answer for me. Still more info is always appreciated. Thanks pals.

[Oren Grad]

Jordan - did you determine conclusively that the 300 Caltar II-N won't fit?

[Michael Kadillak]

After you get the lens let us know if it really makes better images for you.

The best images I have made have been with Artars, Dagors and G Clarons that are single coated or not coated at all. But no matter what anyone says perception is the only reality absent hard evidence. I hope that it works out for you. The G Claron is a modern version of a Dagor that has quite a reputation for performance.

As a sidebar I saw a 355 G Claron go for over $1,000 last week. I like this lens so much that I now have three in shutter and I use it nearly every time I set up my LF or ULF camera. Now that they are not making the G Claron amymore they should hold their value quite nicely.

As long as everyone keeps purchasing sheet film the other variables are meaningless and we should all be just fine for years to go.

Cheers!

[Jordan]

Oren, I did not yet determine that the Caltar won't fit, however I'm not sure whether it will be sufficient for my needs. It seems like it might work, but I was curious about the Fujinon seeing that it is way more compact and apparently a really cool lens. Michael, I am aware that the lens doesn't make the picture, but surely they reproduce what we photograph in different ways.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I don't want to be fiddling with new developers and development times and new films and whatnot when I already have had great luck with Tri-x and HC. I have gone the experimenting route before.

-snip-

As much as I would love to see another g-claron hit the market for me to bid on, I don't have the money right now. :(

So my question - what's your strength of dilution and developing time for your HC-110 and tri-x. I love that combination myself, but HC-110 is very versatile, and you can really change your results by use of a water pre-soak and variation of developer strength.

The main issue as I see it with HC-110 is it's a very strong developer - is simplistic terms, it wants to rush in and poof - do everything at once. Now I love how you can get a real nice sharp "sparkle" - dunno how else to describe it - with tri-x and hc-110, but it's way too easy to burn up and blot out both ends of the spectrum. What you have to do is "slow down" hc-110, and this can be done with weaker dilutions and longer developing times.

good luck
joe

[Jordan]

Joe,
I use a dillute my hc-110 at: 1oz developer straight from the bottle to 75oz of water. This is pretty dilluted and allows me a development time of 11min. using my jobo 3005 0n beseler motor base.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Joe,
I use a dillute my hc-110 at: 1oz developer straight from the bottle to 75oz of water. This is pretty dilluted and allows me a development time of 11min. using my jobo 3005 0n beseler motor base.

Wow - almost the same as me in my 4x5 - 10ml straight to 700ml water, 2500 tank on a beseler base too. 9-10 min in my case.

If I were in your shoes - try another lens, but don't sell your g-claron until you try side by side. Trying out new and different lenses is one of the fun parts of LF, so any excuse for a new lens is a good one, eh? :)

joe