355mm G-Claron 12x20 14x17 photos?

[MintStudios]

Hello I am trying to find photos taken on 12×20 & 14x17 with a 355mm G-Claron but am not having too much luck through google. If anyone has examples please post them, thank you.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I can't help you, but thanks for asking.

Users of G-Clarons regularly report that their lenses cover much more than Schneider claims. Schneider claims that the 355 G-Claron covers 444 mm at f/22. 14x17 fits in a 560 mm circle, 12x20 in a 590 mm circle. I'd like to see the shots so I can decide for myself whether Schneider is as conservative as users say.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Schneider publishes two set of specs, one for strict graphics reproduction standards at f/22, the other for 1:1 bellows extension. Neither really applies to typical taking photography situations. For that, you really need to talk to existing users and how much movement you'll get, whether contact printing or enlargement etc.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't have examples ready at hand but I can say as a 14x17 shooter that the 355 G-Claron does in fact cover 14x17, with limited movement.

 

[eclarke]

Mine covers my 11x14 with no aparent limitations. Just stop down enough.

 

[MintStudios]

Does anyone know how wide it might look? I read somewhere that its around 40mm on a 35mm camera. Does that sound right to anybody? Ps im also looking to buy one in a barrel if anyone is selling.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sorry but I do not have any examples. I have used my 355 G-Claron on 14x17 often. It's quite wide.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Does anyone know how wide it might look? I read somewhere that its around 40mm on a 35mm camera. Does that sound right to anybody? Ps im also looking to buy one in a barrel if anyone is selling.

Depends which way you crop (because 14x17 isn't the same ratio as the 2x3 of 35mm).
(I've done this quickly so someone might want to check my maths)
17x14" is 431x355mm.
Crop to 431x287 to get 3x2 aspect
Then 355*36/431 = 29.6mm.
at f/9 that also works out to a 35mm DOF of 29.6mm f/0.75 (I'd be stopping down to at least 355mm f/64 to get a semi-reasonable 29mm f/5.4 in 35mm-equiv)

I'm also interested in G-Clarons for my 12x20 project, but I probably can't afford one (I'll just stick with pinholes for now)

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've heard of a number of people using them on 12X20 and 11x14, but a lot depends on the quality you need in the corners of the field. Since
ULF shooter tend to contact print, this does not became anywhere near an issue as in enlargement. Most users of such lenses stop them
down quite a ways. I just shoot 8x10, and know that I could limit out a 355 G even on that format in certain situations, like those involving a lot
of rise or tilt (not hard to encounter when you're trying to shoot redwoods from down in a creekbed!). G-Clarons are generally a bargain compared to other options, and work well all the way from closeup to infinity.

 

[Brickbird]

I have used my 355 often on my 12x20 Lotus. All contact prints and stopped down to f45 or so, everything is sharp corner to corner. For reference, just cut out a 12x20 rectangle from some larger mounting board and hold 14 inches from vision for your view. I've had one for years for framing before I set the beast up.

 

[removed account4]

the 'normal' for a 14/11 is about 16"
the normal for a 12/20 is about 22 "
355mm is around 14 inches ...

so its probably like 35mm on a 35 mm camera and much wider on a 12/20
i use a 13" on a 11/14 often, its not excessively wide

 

[Dave Wooten]

Correct 35 mm. I view 500 mm lens as "normal" on my 14 x 17. 50 mm "normal" on 35 mm camera. 50/35. 500/350.
The G Claron covers. Also at infinty the fuji 450 c and Fuji 11.5 600 c. 450 m nikor also.

 

[jimgalli]

freemont cottonwoods, irwin cyn., railroad valley, nv​

 

[Dave Wooten]

freemont cottonwoods, irwin cyn., railroad valley, nv​

Oh my, this is lovely

 

[jimgalli]

Thanks Dave. I knew you were the one guy who would know how rare this scene is in Nevada. Plus, it's not apparent to the viewer but to scramble on top of a camper shell on a pickup truck with a 14X17 camera to get the perspective is sort of Ansel-ly plus. Most people have enough sense . . . not to.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks Dave. I knew you were the one guy who would know how rare this scene is in Nevada. Plus, it's not apparent to the viewer but to scramble on top of a camper shell on a pickup truck with a 14X17 camera to get the perspective is sort of Ansel-ly plus. Most people have enough sense . . . not to.

Lol! Jim I got a can am commander xt 1000 to haul my old butt and the ulf cameras this year. One day I will have to load it on the trailer and venture up hwy 95

 

[MintStudios]

freemont cottonwoods, irwin cyn., railroad valley, nv​

Very nice....a month later lol. So with the 355mm g-claron lens im a little curious about the coverage wide open. Im not to concerned about the sharpness in the corners but am wondering if it will cover 12x20 to 16x16 at f9?

 

[jimgalli]

Very nice....a month later lol. So with the 355mm g-claron lens im a little curious about the coverage wide open. Im not to concerned about the sharpness in the corners but am wondering if it will cover 12x20 to 16x16 at f9?

Don't know the answer. But fwiw the original conversation surrounded very cheap lenses that might cover, and yesterday I was doing restorative work on 3 lenses that came in the same box for $74 total with shipping. A #4 Turner Reich which of course includes a 24" single component that I believe would cover these formats for under $40 bucks and the 16 1/2" component of the #11 Series VIIa Protar that was in there might also do the job.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think the 355 G-claron would be pushing the very limits of coverage if not past it for 16x20 at most apertures, certainly at wide open f9. 14x17 and 12x20 have very similar diagonals - 22 vs 23 inches, so any lens that covers 14x17 would most likely cover 12x20. But 16x20 is a different animal.

 

[MintStudios]

I think the 355 G-claron would be pushing the very limits of coverage if not past it for 16x20 at most apertures, certainly at wide open f9. 14x17 and 12x20 have very similar diagonals - 22 vs 23 inches, so any lens that covers 14x17 would most likely cover 12x20. But 16x20 is a different animal.

Just to clarify what I meant was if the 355mm g claron was at f9, would cover 12x20 and 16x16 (plus everything in between 13x19, 15x17 etc...)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It will illuminate 12x20 at f9. Cover adequately, that's a different question. The diagonal of the 16x16 is about the same as the 12x20 diagonal, so if it does cover 12x20, it will cover 16x16 as well. But I think you'd be pushing it for adequate sharpness in the corners wide open. Stop down to f22 or f32 and you'll be good to go, though.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Meanwhile, just as an addendum to this, I got myself a 150mm G-Claron the other day for a bargain (well, the elements, but I had a few spare shutters lying around).
It just just just almost covers 8x10 at smallest aperture (I haven't measured yet for a new scale so don't know what f/ number yet).
I can see daylight through the corners of the GG, but not the full aperture. It's actually only mechanical vignetting at that point, I reckon it'd cover fully if I ground off the front filter ring back to the glass (but don't worry, I'm not about to).
But of course, 'cover' and 'sharp' are two different words.
I bought it primarily for 6x17s, so I don't mind that it doesn't cover 8x10, but Im still going to try it on my 4x10 now that I've cut a darkslide in half.

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).

 

[LJH]

There are (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Also on LFPF.

Dr,

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

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Depends which way you crop (because 14x17 isn't the same ratio as the 2x3 of 35mm).
(I've done this quickly so someone might want to check my maths)
17x14" is 431x355mm.
Crop to 431x287 to get 3x2 aspect
Then 355*36/431 = 29.6mm.
at f/9 that also works out to a 35mm DOF of 29.6mm f/0.75 (I'd be stopping down to at least 355mm f/64 to get a semi-reasonable 29mm f/5.4 in 35mm-equiv)

I'm also interested in G-Clarons for my 12x20 project, but I probably can't afford one (I'll just stick with pinholes for now)

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

 

[scheimfluger_77]

What do you ULF shooters use for film?