g-clarons for 8x10

[Jim Galli]

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]

Buy some x-ray film. $26/100 8x10 sheets.

[Drew Wiley]

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]

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]

Seems like a 240mm APO Symmar would be a much better choice than a G Claron.

[Armin Seeholzer]

"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]

@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]

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]

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.