Schneider 305mm F9 G-CLARON?

<p>Hi, I am looking at a Schneider 305mm F9 G-Claron lens (42 mount) for my 4x5 LF field camera. I am looking for comments from anyone that owns or has used the lens. </p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Tim</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tim! Hello again!<br>

I posted a <a href="../large-format-photography-forum/00KwFp"><strong>similar question about the G-Claron 240mm</strong></a> back in 2007, which led to lively and informative discussion, with links to related threads.<br>

A few myths busted, and now much the wiser, I'd gladly use any G-Claron for portrait, copy work, landscape, general purpose whatever.<br>

I was asking whether it is worth having it mounted on a shutter. Here it is mounted directly on the Technika III.</p><div></div>

<p>Kevin, thanks for the info... I read through that thread and you are correct... a lot of interesting info packed in there. I have an opportunity to pick up the 305mm F9 with a copal 1 and thought I better ask around before getting it. It sounds like if I can get it at a good price that it would be a good choice. In the mean time if you hear of any other 300mm lenses with a Copal 1 let me know. With my Shen-Hao I need to probably keep the lens at 300 since as you know the max bellows is 360. I currently have a 90mm Schneider, 120 Rodenstok Macro, 140 Rodenstok and 210 Nikon. The 300 would round out the set for this camera. Now if I can just get a camera with more bellows draw I can get some longer lenses...I am heading up to the Badlands and over to Yellowstone this summer so I would really benefit from those longer lenses. </p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>I own this same lens - 305 f/9 G-Claron in Copal....and its been such a great all-around performer, for formats from 4X5 way up to 11X14. Possibly not at sharp as the latest Apo-whatever at infinity...but arguably better overall (variety of distances and formats), and stunning from about 1:4 to 1:10 ratios at f/22. I find that for greater distances, f/22, f/32 and even f/45 are fine with this lens...for (b+w) prints that (to my eyes) look fine up to 20X24. On 11X14 I just stop down to f/90 and its still fantastic...but keeping in mind that I'm contact printing with this size. </p>

<p>I own and use a G-Claron 270mm/f9 and I'm nothing but impressed. Very sharp (for infinity shots I stop down to at least f32), excellent contrast and color rendition (I shoot transparencies exclusively). Highly recommended.</p>

<p>Other lenses in this focal length range would be:</p>

<p>Nikkor-M 300mm/f9 (which I also own and use). Fantastic little lens, smaller and lighter than the G-Claron.</p>

<p>Fujinon-C 300mm/f8.5 (I own its 450mm brother, an excellent performer). The Fujinon-C 300mm has the shortest flange focal lenght from the lenses mentioned (280mm, if my memory serves me right), and is still a bit lighter than the Nikkor.</p>

<p>Rodenstock Apo-Ronar 300/f9 (never had or seen one).</p>

<p>All lenses mentioned come in #1 shutters.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Be careful with G-Clarons if dismantling for cleaning, and definitely try not to drop one of these!</p>

<p>The inner glass is VERY brittle (maybe fluorite?), as I found to my cost when reassembling one after removing some inner misting. The element got slightly cocked in its mount, and before I could correct the problem the rim of the glass had chipped in several places. Not a total write-off, but an annoying mishap that I should really have avoided. Anyway, I hope someone else can learn from my mistake.</p>

<p>I used a 305 G Claron for many years when I was working as an architectural photographer. I used it on 45 and 810 and it never disappointed. It covered 810 just, with no movement, but the coverage was sufficient. On 45 it's a gem, with excellent results at close conjugates and at infinity. Mine was in a Copal as I recall. I still have it but most of my 45 work is with a field camera that doesn't have the draw for a 305.<br>

You really can't go wrong with this lens, as long as you're not buying it for its speed or image circle. Within its operating parameters it's vastly under-appreciated.</p>

<p>About 15 years ago Ken Hansen loaned me an 8x10 Deardorf wth a 305 G-Claron. I used it to photograph a very large Mark Rothko painting in a collection in Palm Beach. When I got the Provia transparency back from the lab I, through the loupe, saw some hairs on the photo. At first was angry because I thought the lab people were careless. On further inspection, with a stronger loupe, I saw that the 'hairs' I saw were actually some bristles of Rothko's brush that had come off the brush during the painting and were embedded in the paint. . I don't know about sharpness tests but this lens to me is remarkable! Robbie Bedell<br>

<a href="http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com">http://robbiebedell.photoshelter.com</a> </p>

<p>Copy lenses like the G-Glaron and Ronars are superb for repro work but also will out perform most tele lenses at infinity. Since apochromatic glass has been available since before WW II it lost most of it marketing significance until the 1980 and later when apo-lenses once again became all the rage. German repro lenses have been carefully balanced in the three primary colors since the 1960s, so even though they may not say apochromatic they are. These are superb for color work and B&W. <br>

Rodenstock during the 1970s to early 1990s tested as most accurate in this matter, but the differences with Schneider were minimal. Where color accuracy was the issue Sinar and Linhof would promote Rodenstock, but to be fair these differences were academic. I always observed in the dark room that negs made with Rodenstock had better separation in the shadows and were easier to print and that was what mattered to me. If you can afford the G-Glaron buy it, you wont be disappointed. Now that I have grown old I shoot infrequently, but I still love my 240mm Apo Ronar.<br>

When I was younger I was into really rigid cameras and shot with a professional Sinar, it was heavy and cumbersome in the field. Later I bought a metal Wista, a relatively rigid field camera, I was so impressed I eventually abandoned the Sinar even in the office. The Wista had tremendous bellows draw and when combined with a lens extension tube a normal bellows would function with all my long lenses. Even an old Linhof Rodenstock Rotelar 270mm which is a very heavy old lens work well . <br>

Some years ago I picked up a Yamasaki Commercial Congo 300mm on #3 board, with the extender I can use it with the normal bellows. This large heavy lens required a very rigid camera and the Wista worked fine under difficult field conditions and the Congo exceed my expectations. I recommend you consider a metal field camera for stability.<br>

If you go to Yellowstone consider also the Bear Tooth Mountains form Cook City to Red Lodge, MT, wonderful Alpine and Subalpine landscapes far exceeding those found in Yellowstone (and less crowded). Just a small detour after you shoot Yellowstone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Copy lenses like the G-Glaron and Ronars are superb for repro work but also will out perform most tele lenses at infinity. Since apochromatic glass has been available since before WW II it lost most of it marketing significance until the 1980 and later when apo-lenses once again became all the rage</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, APO lenses were available at the start of the last century. I don't know when the first one was manufactured, but i have a Zeiss Apo-Tessar 640mm myself, which IIRC was made on 1921 ca.<br /> COATED Apo lenses are all post-WWII, of course, as very few lenses were coated before the end of the war (most of them for military use).<br /> Unfortunately the best lens design for repro work is the dialyte, which has EIGHT glass-to-air surfaces: In a controlled environment, like in a graphic laboratory with carefully arranged illumination, an uncoated dialyte can be perfectly usable, as there is no backlighting, and the contrast was intrinsecally high, because of the use of lith or grayscale ortho films.<br /> For tabletop use an old uncoated repro lens is still a very good choice, for landscape use i would prefer a modern coated lens, preferably in shutter.<br /> Finding a coated repro lens isn't so expensive, especially if you don't limit your choice to lenses with between-the-lens shutters. So it's not only Red Dot Apo Artars, Repro-Clarons, or modern Apo-Ronars; there are Apo-Nikkors, Boyer Beryls, Voigtlander Apo-Skopars, ex-DDR Apo-Tessars, and some ex-USSR repro lenses (i own a 600mm O-2 lens which was made in the Lomo production unit which made optics for military use: much better than the older Apo-Tessar copies).<br /> Then there are the "wide repros", like the G-Clarons, which have the added advantage of being compatible with modern shutters (only the widely available second generation models; the longer focals of the first generation, those with chrome diaphragm ring and Dagor-like optical layout, are compatible with previous designs, like Compounds or Compur No.2). Those with wider coverage, like WA G-Clarons, or other similar designs, are NOT good for general use.<br /> A small side note: the 210mm G-Claron CAN be used with 8x10", as a moderate wide-angle for general use, but the lens must be stopped down at least to f/22, even better to f/32, and there still is very little wiggle room. The 305mm should cover 11x14", if well stopped down, but i couldn't try it cause i don't have such camera.</p>

<p>enjoy your old lenses</p>

<p>Paolo</p>