355mm G-Claron 12x20 14x17 photos?

[Dan Fromm]

So if 150mm covers (I'm guessing roughly) 280-300mm, instead of their claimed 189mm, then (theoretically, assuming AoV doesn't change like Apo-Ronars do) a 355mm might cover 650-700mm.
That's well enough to cover 12x16" (500mm) with movements, 12x20" (600mm) should work stopped down, if you're lucky you might get 16x20" (650mm) out of it (maybe with slightly vignetting and/or soft corners).

Eh? Wot? Schneider claims 64 degrees for the 150/9 plasmat type G-Claron. A 150 that covers 280 - 300 mm at infinity cover 86 - 90 degrees. That's a considerable stretch. Considerable. Why do you believe its possible?

What to you mean by "AoV doesn't change like Apo-Ronars do?" Fixed focal length lenses don't change angle of view as focused distance changes. Why do you believe they do?

LJM, the threads you reference aren't that convincing. But I have to admit that some mention simply contact printing, which needs much less image quality than enlarging does. So perhaps with the right subject -- no fine detail towards the edges -- and contact printing ...

 

[LJH]

What do you ULF shooters use for film?

Film.

 

[LJH]

LJH, the threads you reference aren't that convincing. But I have to admit that some mention simply contact printing, which needs much less image quality than enlarging does. So perhaps with the right subject -- no fine detail towards the edges -- and contact printing ...

Aside from Clyde Butcher, I don't know of anyone enlarging 12x20. Not saying that they're not out there, I just don't know of any. So, anything I refer to in this realm is contact printed.

I've got the 355mm G Claron on my 7x17 and can't run out of image. Not the the Korona has huge movements. However, once I get around to finishing my DIY 7x17, I'll try it on that. It has a couple more inches of rise.

I can say, though, that the images that it makes are breathtakingly sharp. I am constantly amazed at the detail. On the attached image, I can pick up blades of grass on the rear group of rocks. Amazing.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Have you tried the 150mm as a convertible? All of my G Clarons work well san their front element.

Nope, but it looks like I'm going to have to try that too. I'm presuming that they're totally symmetrical, so the focal length doubles?

I wonder what 12x20 pinhole exposure would be like...

I haven't built the 12x20 pinhole camera yet, but seeing as I'm officially unemployed as of yesterday that's a project I'll do soon. I've taken 11x14" paper negs with 200mm f/330 pinholes, vignettes a bit in the corners so I'm going to make a 4-500mm one next time.
One thing I can definitely tell you is that my scanner ain't big enough. Maybe I'll set up my lightbox and snap some shots with my dslr to share on the internets one day.

Eh? Wot? Schneider claims 64 degrees for the 150/9 plasmat type G-Claron. A 150 that covers 280 - 300 mm at infinity cover 86 - 90 degrees. That's a considerable stretch. Considerable. Why do you believe its possible?

Well, all I can say is that I looked through the clipped-corners of my 8x10 GG and I can see the front filter ring through the aperture, at min aperture. If I dremeled that off it'd probably cover 8x10 (which I'm not going to try), as it is you'd at least get 7x9".
But when I say cover, it may illuminate it and just be mush. So there's only one way to find out what it looks like, I'm going-a-shooting on the weekend by the looks.

What to you mean by "AoV doesn't change like Apo-Ronars do?" Fixed focal length lenses don't change angle of view as focused distance changes. Why do you believe they do?

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Shorter Apo-Ronars (according to datasheets) cover 48 degrees, in the very longer lengths they only cover 40 degrees.
So what I meant was, if a 150mm G-Claron covers just under double its focal length, then if the angle-of-view stays constant for each length and doesn't narrow as the focal length gets longer, then a 355mm G-Claron might be expected to cover just under 700mm.
(Again, cover means illuminate, no prerequisite to look good doing it).

 

[Dr Croubie]

Amazing.

Damn straight. Where's this? And where you at? I'm going to want to see this in person one day...

edit, just saw that it says Woolamai. Thought it looked familiar, I was down that way a bit over a year ago. Pity I didn't have my LF with me (only 645). at the time.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I can say, though, that the images that it makes are breathtakingly sharp. I am constantly amazed at the detail. On the attached image, I can pick up blades of grass on the rear group of rocks. Amazing.

No quarrel at all on the sharpness if you're not enlarging, but I'm not sure about the blades of grass. I have some 35mm E6 shots of seals a good distance away taken with a Questar 700 (I know, not LF) in which I can see their whiskers. Same situation as your grass, except that I know what I'm seeing is groups of whiskers. The Q700 can't separate the individual whiskers. I get the same effect with distant trees with all the formats I shoot. If the twigs are far enough apart they can be seen in the negs, if they're too close together they can't be separated. They look sharp, though.

 

[Dan Fromm]

But when I say cover, it may illuminate it and just be mush. So there's only one way to find out what it looks like, I'm going-a-shooting on the weekend by the looks.



Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Shorter Apo-Ronars (according to datasheets) cover 48 degrees, in the very longer lengths they only cover 40 degrees.
So what I meant was, if a 150mm G-Claron covers just under double its focal length, then if the angle-of-view stays constant for each length and doesn't narrow as the focal length gets longer, then a 355mm G-Claron might be expected to cover just under 700mm.
(Again, cover means illuminate, no prerequisite to look good doing it).

Thanks for the reply. I vote for mush, wait to find out whether I'm mistaken. Its happened before.

What happens with the Apo Ronars (Apo-Artars, Apo-Nikkors, and Apo-Saphirs too) is that as the design is scaled up to make the focal length longer (multiply all radii, thicknesses, inter-element spacing by a constant, multiply the focal length by the same constant) the aberrations are scaled up too and the angle over which definition is acceptable shrinks. If Schneider had made G-Clarons longer than 355 mm they'd have claimed smaller angles covered too.

 

[LJH]

No quarrel at all on the sharpness if you're not enlarging, but I'm not sure about the blades of grass. I have some 35mm E6 shots of seals a good distance away taken with a Questar 700 (I know, not LF) in which I can see their whiskers. Same situation as your grass, except that I know what I'm seeing is groups of whiskers. The Q700 can't separate the individual whiskers. I get the same effect with distant trees with all the formats I shoot. If the twigs are far enough apart they can be seen in the negs, if they're too close together they can't be separated. They look sharp, though.

I'll try to scan the section that I'm referring to. I took another shot with it of the old piers of a pier (run with it). I can make out the lost fishing line on some of the piers at considerable distance.

 

[LJH]

Damn straight. Where's this? And where you at? I'm going to want to see this in person one day...

edit, just saw that it says Woolamai. Thought it looked familiar, I was down that way a bit over a year ago. Pity I didn't have my LF with me (only 645). at the time.

I'm in Melbourne. Happy to show you any of this stuff if you're over here (or I'm over there!)

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Film.

Cute

I,m curious because I don't see anything larger than 8x10 in the usual places, except for litho.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Cute

I,m curious because I don't see anything larger than 8x10 in the usual places, except for litho.

That's why everyone loves Ilford, for doing their annual (there was a url link here which no longer exists) run.
Also, Kodak will do the same if you organise the whole thing yourself and buy a huge MOQ. There's a guy/shop in the US who organises one with Kodak but I can't think of the name right now.

 

[LJH]

That's why everyone loves Ilford, for doing their annual (there was a url link here which no longer exists) run.
Also, Kodak will do the same if you organise the whole thing yourself and buy a huge MOQ. There's a guy/shop in the US who organises one with Kodak but I can't think of the name right now.

(Sorry, 77; I couldn't resist).

Like the good Dr writes, I get my film through Ilford's annual sale. I still have a bit of Efke left (I was sorry to see them go as I like their film).

Keith Canham runs the Kodak ULF specials. I can't remember what the minimum purchase was, but it was too much for one person.

And, forget Fuji. They don't do special orders. Pity, as I'd love to see a 7x17" piece of Velvia 50!

 

[Dr Croubie]

Yeah, Keith Canham, that's the guy.
I was reading the story of Willam Corey the other day, he got Kodak to make him a run of 8x20". MOQ price was $10,000, and that was back in the days of Vericolour.
Also, these guys shoot ULF Provia, not sure if they got it by special order or if Fuji used to just make it in ULF.

 

[LJH]

I was discussing getting some Ektar done in7x17 with another Member, and I think it was around $17k for the run. I'm just no good at converting negatives, so it ended up falling over.

Still (to return this to topic), I would have loved to have seen how the 355mm G Claron would have gone with colour!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I know a former Questar dealer who switched to Apo-Nikkor process lenses for extreme tele-photography because he actually got sharper images that way at inifinity (uses a huge Toyo G 8x10 with Nikon 35mm film cameras or DLSR's at the film plane). I'll admit that I don't even own the 355G, though I do have other focal lengths of G's, and they all have huge image circles relative to focal length and are deadly sharp at infinity. What I also use a great deal is the 360 Fuji A - tons of wiggle room on 8x10, extremely sharp at infinity, but differs from the 355G in being multicoated, and the smaller no.1 shutter means a bit of mechanical vignetting which voids this particular lens of realistic ULF use, despite being very similar in actual optical design. Overall the G Clarons are basically apo corrected like a process lens. I don't know quite how the corners would look at the limits of the image circle, but since ULF negs are generally contact printed, this would pretty
much be a non-issue. The 355G is also relatively compact and light for something in a no.3 shutter.