G-Claron on 4x5 would be...?

<p>I'm aware that comparing lenses from different systems is at least clumsy, but please could

someone experienced compare me G-Claron 240 used on 4x5" to some lens(es) from 35 or

6x6 systems? (like Q.-Tuan Luong did on his article about lenses for 5x7 cameras).<br>

What is that all about - I thought that this particular lens may be good as moderate telephoto

lens (good on infinity when stooped to f22 or more) and as macro lens for 1:1 work (2:1-1:2).

But as more as I have searched on the net it seams that (almost) every one is talking about that

lens as "flat field" lens (now how will that lens act on "non flat field" subject - lets say some food)

and I have seen that angle of view is pretty large what doesn't looks to me like an "moderate

telephoto" lens.<br>

What can I except from such lens? (And please, don't send me to the nearest shop to rent a

lens... I live in country where we don't have such luxury...)<p>

<p>Tnx, Janko.<p>

This is the way I related everything

 

150mm is normal for 4x5

 

80mm is normal for 6x6

 

43mm or so is normal for 35mm

 

 

So if you want to relate divide 43/150 and multiply that by the lens you want to buy.

 

or 43/150*240 = about 69mm on a 35mm camera

See <a href="http://www.painted-with-light.com/html/technical.html"> this</a>

<p>Yes Robert, that is true... and tnx, but doesn't answer what I "wonted" to ask... Sorry,

problem is on my side: my clumsy English.<br>

I will have to make "requestion" (ops:))... <br>

What is "feeling"? What are optical performances? <br>

Mathematically that means that all 240mm lenses on 4x5" will act as "70mm" on 35mm, but I'm

not sure that owners of Apo Ronar which covers 212mm will get the same shot as owners of

Caltar II which will cover 350mm... or Claron with angle of view of 68 (64?) degrees and Sinaron

S with 72 degrees and Apo Sinaron with angle of view of 48 degrees... or am I mistaking?<p>

<p>Tnx again, Janko.</p>

You appear to be mistaking image circle (angle of coverage) of a large format lens with focal length. Focal length conversion is the one true way of comparing apples with apples. The coverage of a large format lens is related to its' ability to cover the film when the lens is displace through movements which a view camera has but that 35 mm an medium format do not normally have. It, coverage has nothing whatsoever to do with the apparent image rendition in the way that you are trying to complicate it. Most flat field lenses are corrected for usage as graphic lenses. They do however also, for the most part, work as excellent view camera lenses. The G Clarons are among those lenses.

I have a 240mm G-Claron and a 305mm also. I used to own the 270mm version. All of these lenses are superb for anything from infinity to 5:1 close-up; do not fear the "flat field" description you hear, thiese lenses will do anything you need done. As far as comparing it to other formats equivalent lenses, for 35mm it is similar to a 70mm to 75mm lens and for 6x6 probably around 120mm.

You might also want to look at what ron wisner calls the "myth of the flat-field lens"

 

http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm

I think the question being asked here is "Can you tell me about a lens in 35 mm or medium format with a FEEL or LOOK similar to the G Claron 240 at 4X5?" and not "Tell me what the equivalent focal length would be?" I am pretty familiar with the G Claron line, but not at all with 35 mm, so I am not the one to tackle this question. Probably not easy to give a good answer, I would expect.

 

Regards,

Nathan

<p>Please accept my apologize for misleading questions caused by my truly clumsy English.

Tnx to Donald on sharing his experience and Tim on link.</p>

<p>Janko</p>

Janko,

I have a 305mm G clarion, which works fine on my ebony, the image circle comfortably allows all movements. Here's a sample shot, distance to the subject was around 5 metres.<div></div>

Janko, the 240 feels like a 75mm will on 35mm camera. Any 240mm lens can project an identical image on 4X5. A Ronar will look the same as a G-Claron or a Symmar or a Artar or a Heliar if all are 240mm. Since a G-Claron will cover 8X10 very nicely you have a large circle with image outside of your 4X5 frame that is not being used at any given time. If you use your movements on the view camera, Rise, Fall, Shift, both on the front and the back you will "see" different portions of that image come into your 4X5 frame. That gives many possible images for my 4X5 frame to "find" within that circle and 240 G-Claron is my favorite lens for 8X10 where it "feels" like a 35mm lens on 35mm camera.

G Claron lenses are optimized for 1:1 magnification ratios (and therefore are good for "macro" work) and flat field subjects but they usually work well for general purpose photography too. I don't have the 240 G Claron but I do use the 150 G Claron on my 4x5 camera and the 210 on my 8x10 camera. Both produce excellent results. The 240 on a 4x5 camera is a moderately long lens for that film format. It isn't a telephoto lens. The term "telephoto" lens refers to a particular lens design and the G Clarons aren't that design. As someone else suggested, the large "angle of view" to which you refer is perhaps a misuse of the term "angle of view" and you may mean a large "image circle." The size of the image circle affects the extent of the camea movements that can be made with the lens (larger the circle the more extensive the movements) but the size of the image circle isn't directly related to the focal length of a lens (i.e. a long lens can have a small image circle, a short lens can have a big image circle, and vice versa).

> G Claron lenses are optimized for 1:1 magnification ratios (and

> therefore are

> good for "macro" work) and flat field subjects but they usually

> work well for

> general purpose photography too.

 

you might want to read the wisner article I referred to. I've no idea if he's right or wrong, but it's certainly interesting!:

 

"How many of you have been told that you shouldn't photograph three dimensional objects in the studio with such a lens? How about the admonition that flat-field lenses are not good at infinity or for landscapes? In a related subject, have you been told that in order to photograph a group of people it is necessary to place them in a semicircle so that they will all be in focus? Every one of these statements is bunk, and using a little theory, we will explain why. We will also explain how to use such a "tricky" lens..."

 

 

 

"..Please notice that we have shown that it is highly desirable to use a lens with as flat a field as possible. This would be especially important at infinity, at which distance the depth of focus(the "tolerance" at the film plane) is most critical. Where the nonsense about not using a "flat field" lens at infinity came from I just don't, unless it was confusion with other aberrations corrected at 1:1..."

 

read the rest at: http://www.wisner.com/myth.htm

Well, there is no 65mm 1:4,5 macro lens in the 35mm world. I called Schneider some months ago because I bought a 355mm Repro-Claron, they told me Your g-Claron is a better choice for working even at infinity. I believe Your lens is damned good for shooting at the studio... But if think about negative sizes an extensions. If you are shooting an icecream it might become similar to a 105mm lens on 35mm so much about perspectives