Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / November 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

G-Claron single cell use

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
murrayatuptowngallery - 21 Oct 2007 08:20 GMT
I just read a 10 year old post about using a G-Claron as a 'pseudo-
convertible' by using one cell; performance would probably be better
than 'vintage' convertibles.

I had previously wondered about splitting plasmats but wrote it off as
'sacrilege' on already decent lenses, but seeing the post made me
realize it's been done.

Anyone actually try this with a G-Claron 150 and does it have any
unique qualities, or just 'work'.

Thanks

Murray
Richard Knoppow - 21 Oct 2007 23:03 GMT
>I just read a 10 year old post about using a G-Claron as a
>'pseudo-
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Murray

    I think, without looking it up, that the G-Claron is a
Plasmat type. These will work as convertibles. The best of
the old convertibles was the Zeiss Convertible Protar
sometimes called a Double Protar. The difference is that
these lenses are individually corrected for coma where some
other convertible lenses, notably the Goerz Dagor and Dogmar
are not. This allows the Protar to be used at larger stops
with reasonable sharpness in the corners. Dagor cells must
be stopped down to around f/45 to get rid of enough coma to
be sharp away from the center. Protars are OK at f/36 or
maybe even a little wider.
    Nearly any symmetrical lens can be used as a
convertible but, as noted for the Dagor, some aberrations,
especially those corrected by the symmetry, will be present.
    My experience with the convertible type of Symmar is
that they perform about as well as a Convertible Protar, but
not better. Actually, I think the correction of the
individual Protar cells is a little better.
    I don't know if the early Plasmat type Symmar (the
first lens of this name was a Dagor type) was specifically
corrected for coma but it probably was. Later ones are
corrected for best performance in a complete lens but single
cells probably perform pretty well when stopped down enough.
This should apply to the G-Claron.
   FWIW, the Plasmat was derived from the Dagor by
air-spacing one of the elements. I has similar performance
but much less zonal spherical aberration, an inherent fault
of the Dagor type. Plasmats can also be corrected for
astigmatism to a very high degree. Like the Dagor they are
essentially wide angle lenses although most have perhaps
about 10degrees less coverage than an equivalent Dagor. The
single cells of convertible lenses of all types have quit
narrow coverage, the plate size being about the same as the
assembled lens.

Signature

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Stephan Goldstein - 22 Oct 2007 11:46 GMT
>I just read a 10 year old post about using a G-Claron as a 'pseudo-
>convertible' by using one cell; performance would probably be better
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>Murray

I have a saved post from long ago that suggests using a yellow filter
when using it as a convertible (assuming you're shooting B&W).  This
was to reduce the chromatic aberration that would otherwise be
corrected by the front cell.  The same poster claimed the focal length
was about 300mm for the rear cell only.

Sorry, I've never tried it myself.

steve
Jean-David Beyer - 22 Oct 2007 13:46 GMT
>>I just read a 10 year old post about using a G-Claron as a 'pseudo-
>>convertible' by using one cell; performance would probably be better
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Sorry, I've never tried it myself.

Ron Wisner recommends using a strong yellow filter (I imagine any
monochromatic filter would do as well) when using single cells of
his Convertible Plasmat set. This is to solve the problem of uncorrected
lateral color in a single cell. Now I do not use a #15 filter for that,
but I do use B&W filter 58ES MEDIUM YELLOW (022). Note that, when using
a single cell, the focal length tends to be quite long compared with
using a pair together.Of course, this would work only with black and
white film where blue light was not too important.

He presumably makes a corrector lens that has zero power but all the same
distortions so that it corrects a single cell. I ordered one when he first
announced it over 10 years ago, but he is yet to ship me one, so I cannot
say how well it works.

Signature

 .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
 /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 08:30:01 up 15 days, 16:06, 4 users, load average: 4.06, 4.16, 4.22

murrayatuptowngallery - 23 Oct 2007 06:35 GMT
Thanks, all.

Yes, the notorious vaporware field corrector - I have even heard of
it's non-existence, at least in this plane...

Murray
Thor Lancelot Simon - 25 Oct 2007 12:54 GMT
>He presumably makes a corrector lens that has zero power but all the same
>distortions so that it corrects a single cell. I ordered one when he first
>announced it over 10 years ago, but he is yet to ship me one, so I cannot
>say how well it works.

Didn't he in fact run his company out of business by taking prepayments
and deposits for work that wasn't, in fact, ever done?  I tried off and
on for several years to get a replacement back (graflok style) for my 4x5
trad and wondered why he wasn't responding to my inquiries but now I feel
lucky he didn't -- since I took the camera in to L&R for repairs a few
weeks ago and discovered there were no spare parts available (luckily
I didn't need any) I've talked to several other people who were persistent
enough to get in touch with Ron over the past few years and, if they ordered
anything, ended up wishing they hadn't...

Signature

 Thor Lancelot Simon                                        tls@rek.tjls.com

 "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
  be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."         - Noam Chomsky

Jean-David Beyer - 25 Oct 2007 15:47 GMT
>>He presumably makes a corrector lens that has zero power but all the same
>>distortions so that it corrects a single cell. I ordered one when he first
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> enough to get in touch with Ron over the past few years and, if they ordered
> anything, ended up wishing they hadn't...

I have never been dissatisfied with the quality and workmanship of his
products. Most things were delivered promptly. The Convertible Plasmat
Set took a couple of years, though. But I definately got it and I use
it to the exclusion of everything else except the 90mm f/8 SuperAngulon.

The big problem was the corrector, and the problems were not entirely
his. After what I thought was too much delay, Ron offered to refund my
money, but I would rather have the lens than the money, so I have held
on. Now it seems he is trying to rectify this and is taking few or no
new orders until the backlog is taken care of. He also suggests he is
thinning out his product line to make things more manageable. This may
also reflect a drop in business due to the digital machines and bicycle
craze supplainting the photography sport.

I have _never_ had a question of his honesty.

Signature

 .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
 /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 10:40:01 up 2 days, 2:58, 5 users, load average: 5.30, 5.32, 5.26

JB - 09 Nov 2009 08:47 GMT
> I just read a 10 year old post about using a G-Claron as a 'pseudo-
> convertible' by using one cell; performance would probably be better
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Murray

I purchased a G Claron 150 from Chuck Farmer at The F Stops Here about
15 years ago. It's a great lens under certain light conditions. I used
it configured as 150 and as 300. In the 300 configuration, you need an
adaptor that will permit the mounting of a yellow filter, to replace the
front element.

Sorry, but I don't have the filter dimensions / specs at hand, but
34.5mm pops up as the correct fit.

The most critical aspect of using the 150 as a 300mm is the reality of
single-coating on the G-Claron lens, which after all was intended to be
used as a flat-field repro lens. Attach a lens shade to the yellow
filter and never shoot even obliquely into sun.

With yellow filter and lens shade the G-Claron 150 configured for 300
produces wonderful, sharp images. It's a great lens.

Regarding Ron Wisner, I used the G-Claron on his Technical Field camera
for five years. Great combination.

- Jan Becket, Honolulu
Richard Knoppow - 14 Nov 2009 23:12 GMT
> In article
> <1192929646.407079.297720@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> - Jan Becket, Honolulu

    The problem with all convertible lenses is that when a
single cell is used one loses the automatic corrections
introduced by symmetry or even semi symmetry. Symmetry
corrects the three lateral aberrations: lateral color, coma,
geometric distortion. Some convertible lenses, for instance
the Zeiss Convertible Protar, have some correction for coma
in the individual cells but most do not. For instance, the
Dagor, while patented and sold as a convertible really is
not because the individual cells have a lot of coma so work
only as very small stops (around f/45). The combined lens
has very little coma. While the cancellation is maximum
where the entire optical system is symmetrical (equal object
and image sizes) it is considerable even at infinity.
   The Plasmat is really a derivation of the Dagor where
the inside cemented element is broken free and air-spaced.
This gives the designer an additional surface and a spacing.
While the Dagor has considerable uncorrected spherical
aberration the Plasmat has very little. The design was known
for decades but not used widely because of excessive flare
where not coated. The availability of economical coating
methods following WW-2 changed the whole approach to lens
design making it possible to use air-spaced elements in
place of the previously used cemented elements. This
resulted in the practicallity of using some excellent
designs previously not used due to excessive flare and a
considerable improvement in lens performance.
    I don't know why the lens would need a color filter.
Perhaps its chromatic correction depends on its symmetry,
certainly its lateral color correction does. Filters have no
effect whatever on flare, other to increase it if the
filters are not coated.
    Process lenses when used for their original purpose in
making photo-mechanical half tone plates, do not really need
to be coated since the flare can be corrected by a small
change in exposure.

Signature

--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.