PDA

View Full Version : g-clarons for 8x10



Joseph O'Neil
22-Oct-2008, 14:16
Another dumb question for the day. Just got my used 8x10, cleaning it up, and i have two lenses that will cover 8x10, both are g-clarons, one is the 240mm and the other is the 270mm. Pretty close in size as you can see. Both are mounted for use with my 4x5, but I bought both thinking that eventually one would be for 4x5, and the other for 8x10.

Now that I am there, not sure which one I should mount on the 8x10? I will not be using any other lenses on my 8x10 in the near future ( I do have a couple of process lenses, but that's down the road), the one g-claron will be my "do everything" lens.

With 25 sheets of 8x10 at over $100 a box, before I experiment too much, any suggestions over which one of my two g-clarons I should try first? Anybody used both before? More concerned with the "best" for my 8x10 as first choice, either one is fine for my 4x5 work.
thanks
joe

Capocheny
22-Oct-2008, 14:40
Hi Joe,

Personally speaking... the 240 is my favorite lens for the 8x10. Although I have other lenses, I seem to gravitate towards the 240 because it seems to fit the way I see the world. YMMV.

Cheers

Daniel_Buck
22-Oct-2008, 14:41
I use the 240 g-claron on 4x5 and 8x10, it's nice for both formats! You could probably get a lensboard adapter, so you wouldn't have to keep switching lensboards everytime you want to move one lens from 4x5 to 8x10, and back again. That's what I do, use small linhof boards for 4x5, and use a board adapter to mount on larger cameras that take Sinar boards.

Walter Calahan
22-Oct-2008, 14:45
I don't have a g-Claron 240 mm, instead it is a Nikkor, but that said, I love the 240 mm focal length on 8x10. The perspective simply feels natural to my way of seeing.

Rick Moore
22-Oct-2008, 15:53
I don't have a g-Claron 240 mm, instead it is a Nikkor, but that said, I love the 240 mm focal length on 8x10. The perspective simply feels natural to my way of seeing.

I agree. Since acquiring a 240 Germinar-W this spring, it has become my favorite lens. Like the g-Claron, it is relatively small and light, and as you say, the perspective just seems right on 8x10.

Drew Wiley
22-Oct-2008, 16:29
It should be simple enough to test them both. Although I'm not personally a wide-angle
junkie, I do make frequent use of the 240 G-Claron on my 8x10. It seems to fit this
particular angle-of-view niche superbly. The 270 would give you a litte more coverage, but is fairly close to the 300"normal" perspective. You're lucky to have both.

Diane Maher
22-Oct-2008, 16:41
I have used a 240 G-Claron on 8x10 and it is one of my favorites for that format. I have also used a 270 G-Claron, but not on 8x10 (used on a 5x12). I have not had any coverage issues with either lens and both will suit you nicely on whichever format you choose to use. I would suggest that you try a few sheets using each lens with your typical subject matter. You can then decide for yourself which one you want to use most.

Vaughn
22-Oct-2008, 16:47
I have neither of those focal lengths, instead I have a 210 and a 300. My gut feeling is to go with the 240, and down the line pick up a longer lens (maybe 360).

But I would consider getting an adapter board for the 8x10 that would allow you to use either the 240 or 270 on their 4x5 boards with the 8x10....without having to be switching lenses around on different size boards. Why not have the best of both formats?! And you might find the 270 a tad better for portraits (until you get a longer lens, anyway).

Vaughn

Jim Galli
22-Oct-2008, 17:09
It isn't too difficult to find a "flange" that screws permanently into the lens boards for Copal 1. That way you can trade both of them out on both cameras to see which one you like best. I really love my 270mm on 8X10.

MIke Sherck
22-Oct-2008, 19:51
It's also very easy to make an adaptor board for your 8x10 that allows use of your lenses mounted for 4x5. I made one for mine; all my lenses are mounted in 100mm square boards for my Zone VI 4x5 camera. Over a Saturday I made a 6"x6" adaptor board for my 8x10 Grover monorail that just accepts the lenses in their 4x5 lensboards. It only required a hobby saw and some hobby files, plus an electric drill, and the cost was about US$5, plus paint. I got all the materials at a hobby shop: 3/16" plywood for model aircraft, a strip of brass 1" wide and 12" long, and some misc. screws from the hardware store. Piece of cake and looks halfways decent, too!

I'm the sort of fellow who shouldn't be allowed to use tools, so if I could get it done, anyone can!

Mike

John Kasaian
22-Oct-2008, 19:55
Either one. Both will do you proud. 240mm should be a wee bit wider while 270 should be a bit more generous in movements. As a practical matter, I use a 240 and have never run out of coverage when shooting landscapes.

You're fortunate to have both!

Oren Grad
22-Oct-2008, 20:59
Depends on your taste in field of view and rendering of foreground/background spatial relationships.

Like Jim, I love 270 on 8x10. My favorite focal length for 4x5 is 135, so that won't be a huge surprise. There are few 270s to choose from that will cover 8x10; the G-Claron has the added benefit of being so compact and lightweight.

Daniel_Buck
22-Oct-2008, 21:32
As a practical matter, I use a 240 and have never run out of coverage when shooting landscapes.

Agreed. I've shot the 240 on 8x10 with two filters stacked up, still has room to move :)

Steve Barber
22-Oct-2008, 21:38
Personally, I do not think the 240 G Claron has enough coverage for use on an 8x10.

In the end, however, like most issues beaten to death here, the only way you are going to find out what you like is to "waste" some of that high priced film by trying it out. When you do, worry about what is important to you and satisfy yourself.

Darryl Baird
22-Oct-2008, 22:08
I have a 240 and 305 G-Claron, I tend to prefer the 240 for most of the street level shots (http://www.re-picture.info/flint/images/TheaterStorefront.jpg) I'm doing... and it can run out of room with my shifts. the 305 is my lens when I have to shoot across a street (http://www.re-picture.info/flint/images/WarMemorial_Durant.jpg) or a parking lot or whatever

Shoot with multi-grade paper to save some money, get a hang for the angle of view and "look" and then burn, baby, burn that film. It's great to hold that sheet up to the light after it's developed... nothing quite like it. (I know some of you ULF-ers will disagree, and you're probably right :p )

Ilford MG, yellow filter, f/8 at 1 sec in broad daylight...YMMV

G Benaim
23-Oct-2008, 04:01
How tight is movement w the 210 on 810?

Vaughn
23-Oct-2008, 04:12
How tight is movement w the 210 on 810?

Enough movement for most landscape work...probably would run into problems with serious architectural work. I haven't found it has limited my work yet. I have a 159mm that is a challenge to use on my Zone VI 8x10 -- too much bellows to scrunch up.

Vaughn

Brian Ellis
23-Oct-2008, 09:58
If you're wondering about this only from the standpoint of the two different focal lengths and not from other differences between the two lenses, I don't think the 30mm difference in the 8x10 format is enough to worry about. But if I had to choose only on the basis of focal length, I'd go with the 240 on the theory that I could always crop a print from a 240mm lens down to the equivalent angle of view of a 270 but I couldn't add back something that was missing from the 270.

Joseph O'Neil
23-Oct-2008, 10:30
Hi everyone;
I think you all answered the question for me. Not withstanding trying both lenses, I will use the 240mm on my 8x10, and save the 270 for my 4x5. Sounds (and looks) like a few people like the 240 size in 8x10.

I have two 210s for my smaller camera, so the jump form 210 to 270 is a lot better too than to 240.

As for a longer focal length, on the back burner I have a 14" (about 355mm ) Brown process lens, but no shutter. The long term plan is a packard shutter. I know exactly the process camera it came off, and i know it is a good lens, although I haven't heard much of any other Brown lenses.

I thought i might finally get to use that ole 600mm Apo-ronar I have, but you know, it looks physically too big for my 8x10, if you can believe that. Maybe someday. :)

Thanks much for all the ideas. Now does anybody have developing times for FP4, 8x10, in a Jobo tank, with HC-110?
:)

Brian Ellis
23-Oct-2008, 14:00
How tight is movement w the 210 on 810?

With the G Claron line the more you stop down the more the usable coverage. So how "tight" it is depends on the aperture you're using. FWIW, I used a 210 on 8x10 and never ran out of coverage for landscape and exterior architecture as long as I stopped down to f22 or smaller, as I usually did.

Jim Galli
23-Oct-2008, 14:10
With the G Claron line the more you stop down the more the usable coverage. So how "tight" it is depends on the aperture you're using. FWIW, I used a 210 on 8x10 and never ran out of coverage for landscape and exterior architecture as long as I stopped down to f22 or smaller, as I usually did.

I will add that from experimenting on an 11X14 the 210 G-Claron has about 376mm circle with about 360mm useable at about f32. Film diagonal is 310 iirc.

venchka
29-May-2009, 13:50
Buy some x-ray film. $26/100 8x10 sheets.

Drew Wiley
29-May-2009, 16:28
I frequently use a 240 G-Claron on 8X10, mostly for landscape, but also for architecture when a lot of rise is not necessary. But this lens doubles as one of my
favorites for 4X5 also, in which case it's my version of a "normal" for this format.
With 8x10 I ordinarily shoot around f/45 to f/64, so the image circle on 8X10 is quite
acceptable. Since 4x5 is typically enlarged to a greater degree, I never stop down
below f/32. Excellent lens.

Brian Ellis
29-May-2009, 21:26
I'd base it on what your next lens might be, recognizing that you have no plans to buy another one right away. But if you don't think you'll ever want to buy a 210 or shorter lens then keep the 240 as your wide angle lens. If you think you might go shorter than 240 some time in the future then keep the 270 and consider it your normal 8x10 lens, then down the road get a 210 G Claron or something even shorter (e.g. the 159mm Wollensak) as your wide angle.

Doug Dolde
29-May-2009, 21:29
Seems like a 240mm APO Symmar would be a much better choice than a G Claron.

Armin Seeholzer
31-May-2009, 15:10
"Seems like a 240mm APO Symmar would be a much better choice than a G Claron."

Doug is right if you are shooting only almost from the car otherwise is the G-Glaron much smaller and really light.

Cheers Armin

Archphoto
31-May-2009, 16:11
@Drew: have you ever checked the best aperture for your lens ?
For most lenses used on 4x5 it is f:22, f:45 and f:64 seems to be a tad high, or am I wrong with that ?

Peter

Joseph O'Neil
1-Jun-2009, 14:50
Seems like a 240mm APO Symmar would be a much better choice than a G Claron.

Not a bad idea, except I already had both the 240 and 270mm g-clarons in my hands even before i bought my 8x10. :)

The other thing I have noticed a wee bit is you kind of get used to certain lines or styles of lenses. Each type of lens design seems to have - how to say it - it's own "personality"? You either get to like or not like the particular of each different type of lens.

Not withstanding the dimwit on fleabay who keeps flogging g-clarons as "legendary", I've grown to like mine a lot, flaws and assets. I think for future purchases, 4x5 or 8x10, I'm going to keep my eyes open for other sizes in the line.

joe

Drew Wiley
1-Jun-2009, 18:49
Peter - "best aperture" rarely means much with 8x10 film. Depth of field is more
important, relative to the degree of magnification on the print. For my own color work I generally stop down to f/45, which is often gives the best detail in practical terms for a 30X40 print, while for black and white I might go down to f/64, since I enlarge this only to 20x24. However, with the same lens being used for 4x5 film, I generally stop down to f/32, but never to a smaller aperture. Even if f/22 is a hypothetically sharper aperture, the absence of a perfectly flat film plane makes
f/32 more viable. By comparison, with 8x10 color film I use precision adhesive filmholders, which do keep the film quite flat; but 8x10 film bows more in a conventional holder than 4x5. On those infrequent occasions when I might photograph a relatively flat surface, then I will use a wider aperture even for 8x10 to limit diffraction. It all depends what you are doing.