G-Claron 210mm f9 versus WA 210mm f11

[Ron Marshall]

What are the image circles of these lenses and how is the image quality at infinity focus: G-Claron 210mm f9 and G-Claron WA 210mm f11?

I am looking for a wide lens for 8x10.

[Brian Stein]

According to the horses mouth (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/ar..._claron_wa.pdf) at f22 at 1:1 the WA has an image circle of 800mm with 86degrees coverage. Back of the envelope calculation says ~370mm at infinity.

The g-claron (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/gcn.pdf) at f22 1:1 covers 520mm and is given 260mm at infinity with 64 degrees angle of coverage.

The g-clarons are known to cover more as you stop them down further: I dont know if the 210 will ever cover 8x10. If it did, its less than half the weight and takes a 49mm filter rather than a 90mm.

At infinity and stopped down to at least f22 the image quality in clarons is excellent and many use them as regular lenses. Don't know about WA clarons.

[Peter De Smidt]

The 210 g-claron will cover 8x10 when stopped down. The figure that Ron Wisner suggested was that at f45 it covers around 80 degrees.

[Jim Galli]

The horses mouth isn't very useful here. The gigantic f11 lens is a wide field gauss 4 air spaced glasses. It's big, heavy and would require an expensive #3 shutter. The f9 plasmat lens when stopped down achieves 85 degrees so the coverage for 8X10 is virtually the same. Schneider's conservative 64 degrees was for the graphic arts industry. I find the G-Claron's very sharp right out to the edges with perhaps the last half inch or so falling off a bit. Very usable on 8X10 with some care and very light in a Copal 1 shutter.

[Michael Jones]

I had a 270mm WA mounted in a copal 3 and it barely covered 8x10. The circle of illumination was huge, but the usable image circle was much smaller. The unusable portion exhibited a severe drawing or pulling effect, not dissimilar to an old fisheye lens. The image was terrific, the lens looked ‘way cool, but overall, the project was not worth the time and expense. You also have to be very careful of the rear element as it is a hemisphere extending beyond the mount. Based upon my experience with the 270, I would venture the 210 WA will likely not cover 8x10 at infinity. It may work like a charm as a macro lens, though.

A “standard” 210 G-Claron in a #1 shutter is a killer 8x10 lens.

Mike

[gary alessi]

the 210 g claron, as noted will cover 8x10 when stopped down, and used with a little care .....the other lightweight contender is the 210 graphic kowa....usually about 500.00 in a copal 1 shutter...although one sold on this site for 600.00 last month.... the kowa has at least an inch more movement than the g claron...is as sharp...and nearly the same size.....G

[seepaert]

The 270 WA was designed for use in a 70 x 55 cm reproductioncamera or even bigger. Minimum distance between object and film is 1080 mm, so you can imagine the camera must be HUGE (I had one, and it was. It weighed about 400 kilos and needed 4000W power supply.) It will need a 300 to 550 mm rail on a TC or even longer if you want enlargement.

The lens was not designed for use beyond about three to five times enlargement or reduction. Between that values the lens will not show any distortion, but beyond it very well might. All clarons are in fact macrolenses and are designed for maximum contrast, very flat field and minimum distortion.

I don't think I will ever use mine as a TC-lens as it is very, very big indeed and vulnerable as well. Addionally my lens is not equipped with a shutter, so I would have to add one.

The 210 is much smaller than the difference in mm would suggest. I used mine on a 40 x 50 cm reproduction camera.

[David Vickery]

I would like to just sort of reinforce what everyone else has already said. Unless you intend on doing macro work exclusively, do not buy the G-Claron WA 210mm f11! I made the mistake once of buying one of these and they are not good for infinity use! The regular G-Clarons are fantastic lenses--much smaller, have great coverage and are sharp at a wide variety of distances.

[gamel]

There are two versions of the G-Claron. The earlier type consists of six elements, all cemented, while the later version is airspaced. There are differing minimum apertures by focal length. Only the 150mm is limited to f64. The larger sizes go down to f90. If there are exceptions to this I haven't run across them, though makers do sometimes make minor changes without much notice.As to whether or not you could see the difference in a print, there are two factors to consider. First would be a need for depth of field that couldn't be reduced by use of tilts and swings, Secondly, f64 is well below the lenses optimum aperture, and in the region where diffraction becomes a significant factor. Whether or not this would be noticeable in an 8X10 print might depend on fine detail in the subject. Unless dictated by extreme depth of field needs, such very small apertures would, I think, be avoided by most workers.