Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,508   Online: 1052
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,422
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    156
    Matt, It's the same design as a Kodak WF Ektar like the 250mm. Double gauss. They're a wide field, not a true wide angle. It'll cover 85+ degrees which is enough for the 7X17. It's about the most impressive looking lens I've ever seen. A rear street car headlight. It has normal 58mm Copal 3 threads but the modern all black Copal's with the angled face plate are a problem. You'd have to have some material removed from the face plate for clearance. But the earlier chrome Copal 3's that are flat where the threads are might work with no extra fiddling. Also they like to be stopped down. Figure on doing most of your shooting at f45 and f64. I did some shots with one on my 1114 and was favorably impressed. They really don't cover much more than the tiny by comparison 270 f9 G-Claron plasmat. One nice thing though is if you put it in a shutter it will open right up to a nice bright f6.3! Maybe there was focus shift or something that made Schneider throttle them at f11.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  2. #12
    Kerik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    238
    I don't mean to pee on the campfire, but try that lens on your camera before you get too excited about putting it in a shutter. I bought one of these several years ago thinking it would have massive coverage being a "WA" lens. Not so. Barely covered 7x17 and was unacceptably mushy in the corners. I've heard the same complaint from others. Hopefully, yours will be better! But this really is a process/enlarging lens.
    Kerik Kouklis
    Platinum/Gum/Collodion
    www.kerik.com
    2014 Workshop Schedule Online

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    63
    Matt,

    I tried once two 270 WA mounted on a modified Compur (the original couldn't take the lens), hoping to use them in 7x17. First trials on 8x10 : very poor results. A large part of the image, far from the corners, was not sharp enough to the naked eye on the negative, even with the lens stopped down. I exchanged the lenses on the same shutter, it was exactly the same with the second lens. I don't know which is faulty, lens or spacing, but I sent back immediately the two lenses and the shutter to the seller. I hope you will be more lucky, Jim told once here or on another forum he had no problems with the 270 WA.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    106
    Hi - don't want to sound negative but the WA Clarons do not have the same resolving power as the "regular" Clarons. From what I understand they are soft in the corners?? But this is not from experience I hasten to add!! So take it as you will

  5. #15
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    Matt, check a Packard shutter if you need something cheap that works. Sounds like the jury is still out about clarity & coverage. If you find the correct style of old Packard, at least it will work for anything you can dream up in a lens, as one size usually fits all. tim

  6. #16
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Matt, that Copal 3 I sold you is the older style with chrome if I remember correctly, so it may screw right into that one!

    -Jeremy
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  7. #17
    Steve_7x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sierra Foothills
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    88
    Images
    9
    I, like Kerik bought one many years ago, in a modern all black Copal 3. I even had a special cap made by Steve Grimnes for the rear element. In the end I was terribly disapointed in the results... very mushy corners. There may be variations, but before you go through the process of mounting in a shutter etc... try it out.

    I am much happier with my 270/f9 Computar.

    Steve

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    369
    Images
    5
    I had the same experience as kerik. It is really, and I mean REALLY designed as a wide field process lense. The image circle is smaller than a regular g claron, and it goes soft toward the edges more quickly too. The lense was often used on vertical process cameras at around 1:1, and would cover 20x24 at that setting, if I remember the specs correctly. But not a good choice for for landscape over 8x10. Steve Grimes put mine in a copal #3.
    Jamie

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    369
    Images
    5
    This is what the image circle ofthe WA 270 gclaron looks like on 8x20 film (probably stopped down to around 32-45)
    http://www.jamieyoungphoto.com/B&W%2...olios%201.html

    (I'm rebuilding my website so things are a bit messy)

    Steve Grimes had to do a modification to make the lense fit a copal #3. Don't remember what though.

    Jamie Young

  10. #20
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,868
    Images
    235
    thanks for all the replies everyone. (Jamie appreciate the images used with the lens)
    wont be mounting it to a lens anytime soon. so Ill just give it a whirl and see how it does. luckily it wasnt terribly expensive, so worse case I can just use it as a "wider" than my 300 Nikkor on the 8x10.

    thanks again all for the info.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin