Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,986   Posts: 1,523,995   Online: 819
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Images
    8
    The published specs are very conservative. The 355 will cover 12x20 with about an inch of rise. The 305 covers 7x17 with no difficulty at all. Both of these lenses are very sharp all the way to the corners when stopped down smaller than f/32. I am not pulling this information out of my butt. I have both of these lenses and use them frequently with these formats.
    Quote Originally Posted by argus
    Dave,

    I always read that the 355mm barely covers 11x14" at infinity (f22), so the 305mm should not either since it doesn't have a WA label.
    It is possible though that it covers the format for close-by subjects.

    The 270mm WA Claron is even soft in the corners, please refer to this thread by scootermm on the subject (7x17" and 11x14" have almost the same image circle).

    What source are you quoting or are you talking from your own experience?

    Thanks,
    G
    I just want to feel nostalgic like I used to.


    http://www.clayharmon.net - turnip extraordinaire

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shenadoah Valley
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    342
    Images
    4
    I think the 270mm WA claron is a different beast than the 305 and 355mm clarons. The numbers Clay gives are correct the 305 easily covers 11x14 as does the 355 with room to spare. I can't confirm the 12x20 coverage but its not surprising.

    Just becasue the 270mm has WA on it doesn't mean it will cover more at infinity. Remember these were designed and specified for 1:1 so that is where they are optimized. Anyway many many people use these at infinity with excellent results.

  3. #13
    joneil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    75
    Images
    6
    There is also a "regular" 270mm G-Claron - I know, I use one myself. The "regular" 270mm G-Claron is F9, and I think the 270mm WA Claron is F11 or F12.

    The one I have is just superb, and would cover 8x10 with some movements.

    joe

  4. #14
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,401
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    155
    Not only does the 305 cover 1114 and 717 well at infinity (published is 64 degrees but real is 82 degrees) I've also used my normal f9 270mm G-Claron on the 7X17 which is slightly longer diagonal than the 11X14. Admittedly, that's a squeaker though. Remember, when Schneider published 64 degrees they were addressing an mtf fall-off number that was aimed at graphic reproduction folks, not LF photogs. And I've found edge of circle fall-off to be startlingly good right up to the last 10-12mm at the edge.

    Forgot to mention, I have several to sell just now. Take your pick from 150 210 240 and 305mm all in shutters with EXC++ glass. One of the 240's is the dagor formula type. A couple are in the classifieds here, but not all of them yet. So many lenses, so little time.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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