G-Clarons vs. Rodagons (or Componons)

[c4-contemporary-art]

I remember a time in the 80s when it was all the rage to mount a componon

in a shutter to get super sharp closeups. It seems lately everyone's gaga

over G-Clarons - and I find myself wondering how they compare. My guess is

that the G-Clarons might be preferred because of their infinity

performance... but I don't know that anyone's actually checked this out with

a Rodagon or Componon. Thoughts?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Our copy camera was a 5x7 Durst 138S; with a 210mm F5.6 Schneider Componon; in MX Syncro Compur to 1/500. we got in in the mid 1960's; and sold it about 1980. It was very sharp for shooting engineering drawings; copying of photos; macro work too.<BR><BR> We bought the lens new with the shutter; as part of a reprographic camera settup. We used it from 1:1 to 1:10 ; over 15 years; before the 1980's rage! :) The best aperture was about F11 to F16; at a typical 1:4 ratio job. <BR><BR>We had an electric motorized vertical vacuum board. Also we had the camera on a trolly; so we could move it back and forth when used horizontally. The custom vacuum back we made wa 4x8 feet; with a 1 inch hole pattern; and a giant blower; reversed so as a vacuum source.<BR><BR> The microfilm microfiche lens was also a Componon; a special 60mm F5.6 -M variant; corrected for large ratios; made for the repro market. Normmal we enlarged 35mm microfilm to 30x40 or 36x48 inch sizes. This was a great lens at this large ratio; also a great mural lens.

[thomas_vaehrmann]

Just one thought: the G-Claron covers a larger angle. I've used both G-Claron and Componon at aprx. 1:10 and near infinity and satisfied with the results. The G-Claron is slow, the Symmar offers one f-stop more and the Componon has less coverage.