Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,749   Posts: 1,483,777   Online: 805
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    Rick Olson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    U.S. Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    94
    Images
    9
    Further to my message above, what makes the 355 G-Claron so special in regards to its ability to cover 7 x 17? It is a smaller focal length lens and has a smaller native image circle at f-22 when compared to the Fuji above. Is it the design of the G-Claron (non-plasmat?) that allows it to cast a large image circle when stopped down compared to a plasmat lens? Why no concerns of mechanical vignetting with the G-Claron? Thanks for your clarification on this.

    Rick

  2. #12
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Olson View Post
    It is a smaller focal length lens and has a smaller native image circle at f-22 when compared to the Fuji above.
    According to the manufacturer's charts yes, but in reality the G-Clarons have huge coverage. It's due to the design of the lens.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Olson View Post
    Further to my message above, what makes the 355 G-Claron so special in regards to its ability to cover 7 x 17? It is a smaller focal length lens and has a smaller native image circle at f-22 when compared to the Fuji above. Is it the design of the G-Claron (non-plasmat?) that allows it to cast a large image circle when stopped down compared to a plasmat lens? Why no concerns of mechanical vignetting with the G-Claron? Thanks for your clarification on this.

    Rick
    Rick,

    Actually, the G Claron IS a plasmat (6/4 construction). I suspect the greater coverage of the G Claron is due to the absence of field stops. A field stop mechanically limits a lens' field of view. Most older lenses (Dagors, Angulons, etc.) did not incorporate field stops. Without a field stop to mechanically limit coverage, many older lenses have a much larger circle of illumination than circle of acceptable definition. The problem with this situation is that different people will have different opinions about what exactly constitutes "acceptable definition".

    A real world example - The Schneider Angulon is a derivative of the famous Goerz Dagor (6/2 construction). The powers of the elements were switched (it's often referred to s a reverse Dagor design) and the outer elements are oversized (compared to a standard Dagor of same focal length) in an attempt to increase coverage by elminating mechanical vignetting. Since the goal was as much coverage as possible, the Angulon design doesn't incorporate any field stops. Early Angulon ads and brochures touted coverage as high as 107 degrees for the Angulon (here's a Schneider catalog from 1939 that lists the coverage of the Angulon series as 105 degrees).

    Yes, an Angulon will throw a huge circle of illumination, but just how much of that huge circle is actually usable. Well, again it depends a bit on personal opinion, but in my experience with several Angulons of varoius focal lengths and vintages, usable coverage is around 80 degrees at f22 and increases to about 90 degree in the f32 to f45 range. I've been deliberately vague here as this is based on my own personal criteria for "acceptable definition".

    So, Schneider publishes these outlandish 105 - 107 degree coverage claims and photographers start saying the Angulon has very dismal corner performance - it's soft at the edges, etc. Because, frankly, it does go soft in the corners, very soft, if you try to use the full 107 degree coverage (or even much more than 90 degrees). This isn't good for Schneider. It makes them look bad and hurts the reputation of their products. So, after WWII they start to gradually reduce the published specs on their Angulon series. By the 1960s, the published specs for the Angulon are a much more conservative 80 - 85 degrees at f22. The lenses still throw this huge circle of illumination, but the expecatations are now a lot more reasonable regarding the usable coverage of these lenses.

    In order to avoid this problem from recurring, sometime in the 1970s, Schneider started incorporating field stops into the deign of their general purpose taking lenses. They use the field stops to limit the circle of illumination to something at, or slightly larger, than the published coverage specs. So, with these field stops, they have set a hard limit on maximum possible coverage and have removed any ambiguity concerning what constituites "acceptable definition".

    So, back to the G Claron. It doesn't appear to have any field stops incorporated to limit maximum coverage. In this way, it's still a bit of an "old school" lens. Beyond the published coverage spec, the G Claron's performnce tapers off very gradually. And the performance at the extremes can indeed be improved by stopping down, thus effectively enlarging the circle of acceptable definition. Most photographers who use G Clarons consider the usable coverage to be about 80 degrees at f32, and maybe a couple degrees more if stopping down to f45 or f64.

    Another lens that apparently didn't incorporate field stops is the old 355/360mm Symmar (often called the Convertible Symmar). Older samples came in Compound or Ilex shutters, had an engraved focal length of 360mm and a maximum aperture of f5.6. I have a later sample (ca. 1971) that is engraved 355mm and has a maximum aperture of f6.8 (due to the physical limitations of the Copal No. 3 shutter). Schneider rated this lens to cover 70 degrees at f22. Like the G Claron, coverage continues to increase as you stop down. Like the 355mm G Claron, users have reported that these older Convertible Symmars cover 12x20 with a bit left over at small stops.

    When the original single coated Fujinon-W line debuted in the early 1970s, Fuji advertised 80 degrees of coverage. I suspect these lenses either had no field stops, or less restrictive field stops than their Schneider and Rodenstock contemporaries (Symmar-S and Sironar-N). When the newer multicoated Fujinon-W series (called NWS in the literature, but still labeled as Fujinon-W on the lenses) debuted around 1980, I have no idea if they incorporated field stops to limit maximum coverage. They did reduce the coverage claims in their published specs to a more conservative 72 degrees (more, or less, depending on focal length).

    I recently purchased one of these 1980s vintage 360mm multicoated f6.3 Fujinon-W lenses (like the one Emile has - I paid considerably more for mine, though). I haven't yet had a chance to test the coverage. Based on Emile's, and other, user reports, I'm sure it will cover 7x17 just dandy. How much more, I can't say. I'll find out eventually when I have chance to test it along with some of my other ULF lenses. I'm planning to add 14x17 as my next format. So, I want to see just how much my various lenses cover before deciding which to keep and which to sell.

    Kerry

  4. #14
    Rick Olson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    U.S. Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    94
    Images
    9
    Kerry ... thanks. I have learned a great lesson this evening!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    OC,California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    103
    Images
    32
    Hi Rick
    Which city are you in OC? I have the lens and it cover 8x20 wide open.Let me know if you want to check it out. I'm in Laguna Hills. Hope this helps. TT

  6. #16
    Rick Olson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    U.S. Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    94
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tri Tran View Post
    Hi Rick
    Which city are you in OC? I have the lens and it cover 8x20 wide open.Let me know if you want to check it out. I'm in Laguna Hills. Hope this helps. TT
    Hello Tri Tran ... Thanks. Which of the lenses discussed do you have? The Fuji 360, f-6.5, the Fuji 360, 6.3 or the G-Claron. I am in Fountain Valley/Huntington Beach. Perhaps we can discuss via PM. I am interested in your application of the lens.

    Thanks,
    Rick
    Last edited by Rick Olson; 01-14-2007 at 11:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    OC,California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    103
    Images
    32
    Hi Rick,
    It's a CM W 360 6.5 MC latest model. Please check your PM for contact info.Thanks. TT

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by kthalmann View Post
    Emile,

    Is yours the current f6.5 CM-W version that Rick is asking about? If it is, you got a HECK of a bargain. It currently sells for $1595 new and is seldom seen on the used market.

    Or do you have the older 360mm 6.3 Fujinon-W ($250 would still be a bargain)? I have one of these, but haven't had a chance to use it on ULF yet to test the coverage. If this is the one you have, is yours the singe coated, or multicoaed version?

    Thanks,
    Kerry
    I used a 360mm 6.3 Fujinon-W for several years on 7X17. It gave plenty of coverage for this format, but covered slightly less than the 355 G-Claron. The 360mm Fujionon¡-W I had, which was one of the older ones, did not cover 12X20, thouugh it just missed.

    Sandy

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    I used a 360mm 6.3 Fujinon-W for several years on 7X17. It gave plenty of coverage for this format, but covered slightly less than the 355 G-Claron. The 360mm Fujionon¡-W I had, which was one of the older ones, did not cover 12X20, thouugh it just missed.
    Sandy,

    When you say your 360mm Fujinon-W was "one of the older ones", are you referring to one of the REALLY old single coated models from the 1970s? Or, do you mean one of the EBC multicoated ones from the 1980s that pre-dates the current CM-W models?

    The easiest way to tell which you have is the location of the lettering on the front cell. Inner lettering, like on the 420mm Fujinon-L shown below, indicates single coated.



    Outer lettering, as shown on the 360mm Fujinon A below, indicates EBC multicoating.



    The one I have, is the EBC multicoated version. It is in a factory Copal No. 3 shutter with the chrome ring and definitely multicoated.

    The reason I ask is the early single coated models were advertised with 80 degrees of coverage. When the newer, EBC multicoated NWS versions came out, the advertised coverage for most focal langths was reduced and the designs of the shorter focal lenths changed from the standard 6/4 plasmat configuration to either 6/5 or 6/6 construction. I'll have to check all my old Fujinon brochures to see if/when the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon construction ever changed.

    If, indeed, the multicoated version of the 360mm f6.3 Fujinon-W covers nearly 12x20, it has a few advantages, on the 7x17 (and posibly 8x20) formats over the 355mm G Claron and 355/360mm Convertible Symmar. For one, it is multicoated. Compard to the G Claron, it is a stop faster and not much bigger (86mm filters vs. 77mm filters). This also makes it considerably smaller than the 355/360mm Convertible Symmar (86mm vs. 105mm filters). And while it may sell for a little more than the Convertible Symmar, at typical selling prices ~$300 - $350 less than a comparable condition G Claron, it's a true bargain among shutter-mounted, multicoated ULF lenses. Most of the ones I've seen for sale recently have been priced in the $499 - $549 range - compared to ~$799 - $899 for a shutter-mounted G Claron.

    Kerry

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by kthalmann View Post
    Sandy,

    When you say your 360mm Fujinon-W was "one of the older ones", are you referring to one of the REALLY old single coated models from the 1970s? Or, do you mean one of the EBC multicoated ones from the 1980s that pre-dates the current CM-W models?
    Kerry

    Kerry,

    It was definitely one of the older ones, single coated and made in the late 1970s. I owned a 180mm version of the older lens and I am fairly certain it would cover 80 degrees, but the 360mm specimen definitely did not cover that much. I figure it was more like 75-77 degrees because it takes about 79 degrees to cover the 12X20 format and the one I had definitely missed. I thought I read somewhere that the longer versions of this lens, i.e. 360mm and 480mm, had slightly less coverage in degrees than the shorter ones, but I can not find the referene.

    Sandy

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