PDA

View Full Version : Fujinon 360 A or G-Claron 355 ??



Alexander Kuchin
14-Aug-2011, 23:53
Hello.
Your council is necessary.
My camera 11x14 ". I print only contact.
I use Fujinon 360A for landscape and architecture photographing. I like its image. But often there is no movement.
I want to get G Claron 355.
Help to compare images of these lenses before I will spend money.

(Excuse my English)

Alex.

evan clarke
15-Aug-2011, 04:38
The G claron will cover spectacularly at small apertures I have a 305 and it covers my 11x14 really well and is sharp from corner to corner..almost too sharp..EC

Alexander Kuchin
15-Aug-2011, 06:34
I know that the covering 335 will suffice for 11x14 with a large supply.
Whether drawing light and dark is pleasant to you? How he draws unsharp details?

Drew Wiley
15-Aug-2011, 10:17
The G-Claron and Fuji A are analogous designs, but the G-Claron will have larger coverage due to the no.3 shutter, but will obviously also be heavier. The Fuji might have slightly higher contrast due to multi-coating, but otherwise the rendering of the two lenses should be quite similar.

John NYC
15-Aug-2011, 15:26
I always shot my 240mm g-claron and now my 305mm g-claron at f/22 (all on 8x10). So, I cannot comment about out-of-focus areas, but I can say the g-clarons in the focal lengths I mentioned are super sharp and have plenty of contrast for my tastes. Most people (and Schneider) recommend stopping down to f/22 for infinity shots on these lenses.

Capocheny
15-Aug-2011, 21:46
Really like the results from the 305 and 355... both are sharp and contrasty enough for my tastes!

The 240 G-Claron was also a beautiful piece of glass.

Haven't used a Fujinon 360A before so can't speak to it.

Cheers

Andrew O'Neill
15-Aug-2011, 22:16
The 355 G-Claron is a superb lens. I've been using it on the 8x10 and plan on using it on the 14x17.

Oren Grad
15-Aug-2011, 22:20
Whether drawing light and dark is pleasant to you? How he draws unsharp details?

I have owned and used the 270, 305 and 355 G-Clarons. If what you want is the utmost subtlety in rendering out-of-focus backgrounds in landscape work, I cannot recommend them. When I'm in the field I often find myself wanting to make pictures focused at a middling distance, with the lens at a medium to small aperture and sharpness gradually falling away from the point of focus. To my taste the G-Claron "drawing" in those situations tends to be harsh and unsubtle.

I still use G-Clarons sometimes anyway. The combination of relatively small size and weight for the respective focal lengths plus large usable image circle can be a lifesaver when backpacking a big camera into the field. But if I want the OOF rendering and the overall image character to be really lovely, I'll reach for something else.

John Kasaian
15-Aug-2011, 22:45
Have you considered a14" Commercial Ektar?

Drew Wiley
16-Aug-2011, 13:06
To reiterate, the rendering of the equivalent focal lengths of the G-Claron and Fuji A
are about the same, and absolutely superb if you are looking for a hard-sharp result.
But as others have noted, the out-of-focus characteristics or selective blur might not
please people who routinely incorporate that kind of thing into their images. For that
kind of use I prefer a 14 inch Dagor, which unfortunately is a bit skimpy in coverage
for anything larger than 8X10. Perhaps a vintage Trigor would work?

Alexander Kuchin
16-Aug-2011, 13:29
Thanks all!
My first lens for 11х14 "Symmar360/5,6. I very much like this lens, but it too heavy for distant walks :) Therefore I have got easy replacement - Fujinon. All is good, except a small circle.
I not considered Commercial Ektar 14 ". Ilex#5 it is the big piece of iron :) And a circle of the image less than at G-claron. Or I am mistaken?

carverlux
15-Oct-2011, 13:35
But if I want the OOF rendering and the overall image character to be really lovely, I'll reach for something else.

Oren,

What do you reach for over the G-Claron's to get the effect you were describing above?

carver

cdholden
15-Oct-2011, 16:38
Thanks all!
My first lens for 11х14 "Symmar360/5,6. I very much like this lens, but it too heavy for distant walks :) Therefore I have got easy replacement - Fujinon. All is good, except a small circle.
I not considered Commercial Ektar 14 ". Ilex#5 it is the big piece of iron :) And a circle of the image less than at G-claron. Or I am mistaken?

Alex,
The 14" Ektar will cover 11x14, but does not have much room for movement. It also has a very nice look for the out of focus background/foreground if using wide apertures. Search for images of portraits by Yousuf Karsh. Also, see http://www.cbc.ca/lifeandtimes/karsh.html

Chris

Oren Grad
16-Oct-2011, 21:33
Oren,

What do you reach for over the G-Claron's to get the effect you were describing above?

carver

Sorry for my delay in responding.

So you and others will understand where I'm coming from: I hardly ever make LF pictures with the lens wide open or nearly so, nor do I make many pictures isolating nearby subjects against distant OOF backgrounds. Instead, as I hinted earlier in this thread, I'm interested mostly in the transition from the plane of focus to the OOF background of subjects at midrange that have some depth.

For those pictures, my favorite is the Apo-Sironar-S series at middle apertures. They combine state-of-the-art clarity in the plane of focus with an exquisitely controlled transition to the OOF background. No frizz, hash, oatmeal, or grainy fuzz - objects just dissolve smoothly and transparently as if into water, retaining recognizable form until there is nothing left.

If you want a treat, take an 8x10 camera into the forest; all the better if there are plenty of bare branches. Make an exposure with the 240 or 300 or 360 Apo-Sironar-S focused at 15 or 20 feet, and set to f/22 or f/32 - perhaps as far as f/45, especially with the longer lenses. Make a contact print and look closely at what happens to the trees behind the plane of focus as they recede into the background.

Drew Wiley
19-Oct-2011, 12:59
Well then you are talking about selective focus or bokeh or whatever. I shoot in dense woods rather often but try to get everything tack sharp, and often resort to f/64 with
the 8X10. The G-Claron will perform just about the same as the Fujinon A in this respect, just with a somewhat larger image circle. Sometimes the coastal fog comes to my aid and softens things in the background; but neither of these particular lenses have the kind of transition blur you want. My Kern dagor certainly does, but won't do
a good job covering anything much larger than 8x10 film. The Apo Sironar S sounds interesting, but that's one big expensive piece of glass!

ridax
9-May-2013, 13:59
Hi Alexander, please feel free to PM me in Russian if still interested.

Nice to see the 'drawing' word slip into English at last. For those heaving never heard it: the term 'lens's drawing', or 'optical drawing' is widely used here in Russia since the 19 century, many decades before 'the B word' made its way into the Western hemisphere. The term has a very broad meaning, including, but not restricted to, the background and the foreground blur, the in-focus details microcontrast, the overall contrast, distortion, etc., etc., etc. - that is, all the pictorial qualities inherited in the lens itself.

As for the background blur smoothness, I'd praise the 7.7 (6.8 for shorter focal lengths) Dagors most of all. But those are not too sharp if stretched to wide-angle usage, so I'd nominate the convertible Symmars and convertible Sironars as the next best ones with much more covering power. I like the Apo-Sironar-S much less - though yes it's still good.... when compared to the other modern plasmats :).

And I agree to all said above on the G-Clarons topic - assuming we are talking about the later plasmat-type G-Clarons used at wide to middle apertures. But at f/32, I find their background blur no worse then the convertible Symmar's (though still not on par with a Dagor's one!). Combined with the low weight (my 355mm in barrel weighs 560 grams) and coverage still better then the Symmars', that makes plasmat G-Clarons not bad a choice for my taste.

An old dagor-type G-Claron may still be a better option for you.

Disclaimer: I always put all my taking lenses into older shutters or barrels with perfectly round apertures. None of my comments apply to any lens with a modern pentagonal iris.

evan clarke
9-May-2013, 14:31
I have both mounted for my 11x14..The G Claron is by far my fave

Ken Lee
9-May-2013, 15:08
In my limited experience, I have found that once closed down to intermediate f/stops (and adjusting for contrast), differences in blur rendition between lenses of various designs can be hard to distinguish.

For a comparison of 150mm Heliar, APO Nikkor and Sironar-S lenses at f/11, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/150mmLensesSharpened.jpg).

For a comparison of 210mm Heliar, Tessar, APO Nikkor and 240mm Fujinon-A lenses at f/11, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/210mmLensesSharpened.jpg). (The point of focus with 210mm Heliar photo is a bit closer than the others: either I focused wrongly or the lens exhibits some focus-shift.)

I'm not suggesting that there is no difference between the blur rendition of a 360 Fujinon A and a 355mm G-Claron - only that stopped-down, it could be more challenging to discern than is often proposed.

ridax
10-May-2013, 05:44
In my limited experience, I have found that once closed down to intermediate f/stops (and adjusting for contrast), differences in blur rendition between lenses of various designs can be hard to distinguish. <...> stopped-down, it could be more challenging to discern than is often proposed.

Yes I swear it is hard. Long ago on another forum in another tong I said that like at night all the cats were gray, at small f-stops all the lenses were alike, and getting a good out of focus rendition was not a big deal with any lens well stopped down. I got a response from a person confessing he makes several sheets of film bracketing on a regular basis just for bokeh with his LF glass well stopped down. And he insisted the deal was actually big enough. Knowing the poster, I thought it was smart to believe him, and remembered his words well. But years passed before I could actually see what he was talking about.

Testing lenses for that difference is a special challenge. If my test reveals no difference between the out of focus rendition of a pair of well stopped-down lenses I usually hesitate to say they are really alike; I think I'd better say my test failed.

So, if the difference is subtle and can be noticed in some special subjects only - why border at all? There is a saying in this part of the planet that even a roasted chicken may peck you in the butt some day. That means: be prepared. Some non-test pictures of this real word do reveal the difference very clearly. And I'd hate to be in the right time in the right place with a wrong lens. And heaving the right lens but not knowing the right ways to use it would be even more frustrating for me.

P.S.: I posted yesterday a bit more of my own opinion on the plasmat G-Claron vs. convertible Symmar in another thread here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?63200-A-discovery-Dagor-type-G-Claron-s-as-the-ultimate-Casket-Set/page2

Ken Lee
10-May-2013, 07:51
Some non-test pictures of this real word do reveal the difference very clearly.

If you could share some, that would be very helpful.

Ken Lee
10-May-2013, 08:06
For a comparison at f/11 between a 300mm Fujinon A and a 360mm APO Nikkor, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/NikkorFujinonLensComparison.jpg).

The 360 is 20% longer, so should have ~20% more blur. The lens designs are different, and at f/11 there is a difference in blur rendition, but is it... appreciable ?

Brian C. Miller
10-May-2013, 08:28
The lens designs are different, and at f/11 there is a difference in blur rendition, but is it... appreciable ?

The difference is negligible, and could be chalked up to 60mm difference in focal length. I'll have to do a test like this with my B&L RR 13in, Kodak Ektar 12in, and Fujinon 300mm. If you want to see something where there's a difference, then it would be a Fujinon or Nikkor compared to a Wollensak Vesta with the front element mounted on the rear, and wide freakin' open on an Ilex 5 shutter. That is a difference!

Drew Wiley
10-May-2013, 10:49
Ken ... very different optical designs, and the 360 Apo Nikkor vs 360A produce very different out-of-focus effects in my opinion. The Nikkor in particular is prone
to a double-line effect. These things are designed for blazingly sharp reproduction, not nice "bokeh". I set up both side by side for just such a comparison a
couple of months ago. By contrast, the 360A and 360G are very similar designs, and I suspect any difference is mainly due to different shutter sizes when used fairly
wide, with a slight difference in flare due to single coat vs MC. None of these lenses is exactly ideal out of focus by Jim Galli standards. I also threw in my 14" Dagor
with my own set of tests, which of course has its unique look - but certainly no soft-focus champion either! I personally use these kinds of lenses for what they
can do sharp, not for selective focus with background blur! There are certainly nuances (like the fact I prefer the dagor fairly wide for portraiture, vs the 360A
for landscape, macro etc).

ridax
11-May-2013, 02:17
Some non-test pictures of this real word do reveal the difference very clearly.
If you could share some, that would be very helpful.

Indeed. But shooting non-test subjects with a presumably wrong lens alongside a suitable one would be so boring that I'd better risk to get infamous for talking things I can't prove then submit to a project like that. :)

Still I might try comparing my 505mm f/9 Protar IIIa with and without its front correction element at f/32 or f/45 some day. The whole lens is not very different from a f/7.7 Dagor (just less fast. And less heavy, too) - at least for my own ways of its usage. But without the front, it becomes some 560 mm or 580 mm with its spherical aberration not corrected at all - still very very soft at f/22. At f/32 the softness is almost gone but the background blur is still better then even with a Dagor (or with the same Protar complete with its front corrector), and I'd say sharpness is still OK for me on 8x10" with no movements. (Sorry still no pics to show. I got the beast just a couple of months ago I have not used it enough yet.)

Brian: I guess your Vesta is different enough from your Nikkor at f/32, too.

Bernice Loui
11-May-2013, 10:30
There is a difference, while not great, the difference in Out of focus rendering is there.

Differences like this become more apparent when the out of focus area is much further away from the area that is in sharp focus. In this example, a still life, the distances between in and out of focus is not that great. If the object in the fore-ground is say 5 feet away and the out of focus area is 500 feet away, the differences will be more significant.. This can also show iris shape behavior in the out of focus rendering and more about the optics behavior and personality.


Bernice



For a comparison at f/11 between a 300mm Fujinon A and a 360mm APO Nikkor, click here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/NikkorFujinonLensComparison.jpg).

The 360 is 20% longer, so should have ~20% more blur. The lens designs are different, and at f/11 there is a difference in blur rendition, but is it... appreciable ?