Jump to content

How Do You Like Your G-Clarons?


jonathan_smith2

Recommended Posts

They are great! I use the 305 on my 8x10 and my 7x17, and the

355 is my favorite lens on the 7x17. I also use the 355 on my

14x17 - it covers fine! For 14x17, it is equivalent to about a 30 on

35mm. Dick Arentz and others use the 355mm on their 12x20's .

The coverage and sharpness of these bad boys are awesome.

They are some of my most used lenses. Stop them down and

the coverage just gets huge.

 

<p>

 

clay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G-Clarons have two great advantages - they're very small and light-

weight for their respective focal lengths, and they offer extremely

large coverage when stopped down to f/45. For example, the 270 will

just cover 11x14 or 7x17, while the 355 is usable on 12x20.

 

<p>

 

Based on my experience of owning and working with the 270 and 355 G-

Clarons as well as other lens types in many focal lengths, however,

my view is that they don't have the refinement of the best modern

plasmat designs - say, the Apo-Symmars and Apo-Sironar-N and -S

series - in sharpness, tonality or overall image character. This is

not to dump on the G-Clarons - they do very well at their intended

use as process lenses. If anything, the surprise is that they do

perform decently in general pictorial use.

 

<p>

 

So it depends what's important to you. They're certainly usable;

whether the image quality tradeoff matters to you depends on whether

a) you see and care about subtleties of image character, b) you have

special requirements for compactness or extreme coverage that can't

be met by the big plasmats, or c) you need a specific focal length

that's hard to get any other way (e.g., 270 for 8x10, anything for

7x17/11x14 or larger).

 

<p>

 

Good luck...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan:

 

<p>

 

The previous poster has it right. The G Clarons are fine lenses, but

the reality of the situation is that when you take the 20x magnifier

to them and throw them on the light box, there can be no questions

that they are a step below modern coated offerings. If size and cost

are important to you, try the Nikon 200 or 300mm M series or the Fuji

450 C. If I were looking for the one lens that performed consistently

with the 4x5 format, it opt for the Nikon 135mm W. Small, inexpensive

and as sharp as I have ever seen in large format. Good Luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems no matter what you do in large format there are compromises.

Who can afford to own every latest APO XL? Some of you, yes, but not

me. I own every Schnieder G-Claron size produced and they continue to

be my favorite lenses. They have allowed me to do so much for so

little $ that I consider them the best bargains in LF. If I sold them

all I couldn't afford the 110XL I'd love to have. Too bad Schneider

didn't see a need for a 120 G-Claron although admittedly f9 might be

difficult by then. And I have strained my eyes on a light table, and

even cut 35mm size areas out of large negs to enlarge 22 times, and

they still hang with the best. I wouldn't trade any 6 element lens

for a Nikkor M which is a 4 element.

All that said, I'll admit my Fuji 240 f9A has bumped the 240 G-Claron.

But only by a very TINY margin, and at 3.3 times the price. I keep

the 240 G-Claron anyways because if I'm shooting old buildings it has

the 380mm circle at f22 1/2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read on the web that for distance shooting the G-Claron has to be

shot at f22 or smaller aperture or the resolution is less than

optimum. The accompanying slower shutter speeds might be bothersome as

well. Rodenstock's and Symmar's top of the line 5.6 lenses ensure

optimum resolution at f11- f16. In certain lighting situations, the

choice of lens might make a dfference as to whether you have to

compensate for reciprocity loss. I am not an expert on this, not even

a connisseur (Did I spell that right?). I would appreciate it if Bob

Salomon would comment. ....................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I have a 240G-Claron in barrel, I think it's a process lens and I've

not used it yet since I haven't any shutter. Answering a previous

post, many users said it could directly fit in a copal 1 shutter.

Obviously, front and rear parts seem to have the right threads to be

screwed in the shutter, my concern is: Is it working according to the

opticals rules? since space between front and rear lens would

increase.Anybody has an answer to that theorical question?

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own the 150 and 210 G Clarons. The 150 is used for 4x5 black and

white enlargements up to 11x14, the 210 is used for 8x10 contact

prints. I've been very pleased with them regarless of the distance

from lens to subject. I don't do any color, no slide film, so I don't

know how they would perform in those media. I've never examined my

negatives on a light table with a 20x loupe but just evaluating all

of my lenses on the bais of the end result (a black and white print)

the G Clarons are outstanding. I also own a Schneider 210 Apo Symmar

that I use for 4x5 enlargements and with enlargements up to 11x14 you

can't tell from looking at the prints which ones were made with the

150 G Claron and which were made with the Apo Symmar. I use the 210 G

Claron only for contact prints with 8x10 and of course the contact

prints are naturally going to look better than most enlargements so

it's not fair to compare that lens with the Apo Symmar but FWIW the

results with the 210 G Claron and contact prints are spectacular if

the operator is functioning properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a 240 G-Claron on my ancient Elwood enlarger to blow up 2 1/4 x

7 1/2" negatives. (Quiz: guess how they got to be that size!) When I

bought it new to go with the ancient enlarger I was given for free,

the photographer (Jack Carnell) who gave me the enlarger advised that

I get a lens with a shutter in case I ever wanted to use it on a

camera, or sell it. At the time I did not own an LF camera (hint for

previous quiz question).

 

<p>

 

Now the proud owner of an Arca-Swiss FC69, I am so grateful for that

advice especially now that I am reading this thread! I didn't think

the lens was appropriate for my infinity subjects, old buildings, but

I see that someone is using it for just that purpose. I'm gonna order

a lens board for it right now, Jeff at Badger!

 

<p>

 

Nora, f/22 doesn't cause me any reciprocity problems shooting

buildings even in the low light of dawn and dusk. I shoot ISO 160

color neg film and never had to go longer than 2 seconds and never

added any compensation and if there were color shifts, they weren't

too strange so I accepted them.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...