Nikkor 300M versus Schneider G Claron 305?

[morey_kitzman]

Any thoughts on the quality of the Nikkor 300M compared to the

Schneider 305 G Claron? Thanks.

[william_marderness1]

For what purpose? The G-Claron has much more coverage than the 300M. For anything larger than 8x10, the G-claron is the only choice. Even for 8x10, I would pick the G-Claron for its greater coverage. For less than 8x10, the 300M is probably better for distant subjects and because of its multi-coating.

[mark_sampson]

When I bought my Nikkor-M 300/9, the salesman told me that it was better at infinity than the equivalent G-Claron, which had the edge close-up. He could have been right. The Nikkor is superb at normal working distances, and has made beautiful closeups and copies too. I also have used a 150mm G-Claron for closeups and copies, and once or twice at longer ranges; it too is a very sharp lens. It would seem to me that you can't go wrong with either one. According to the specs the Schneider has more coverage, which would be an advantage if you are using 8x10- not an issue for me.

[sandy_king]

Both are very good lenses. The G-Claron has greater useful coverage, but the Nikkor is multi-coated and more compact. I agree with William in that the Nikkor would be better for all formats up to 8X10, but for 8X10 and over the G-Claron would have the edge.

 

Sandy King

[chris_glanton]

I too just went thru this process and research...ordered the Nikon 300M from Badger and awaiting delivery actually. I read past posts from alot of users, but William's post seems to be the most prominent opinion. I went with the Nikon as I shoot mostly landscapes and wanted a lens designed for distance and the multicoating. Otherwise, I would've went with the G-Claron as I saw on a lens test webpage that the G-Claron was sharper by the stats. Note though, I'm a only a beginner shooting 4x5 right now, and would like to learn to use this format proficiently before considering moving up to 8x10...or if I ever do. The Nikon apparantly barely covers 8x10 but should cover it if needed. Both have great resale value so they are equal in this respect. Good luck.

[dan_smith]

Yes, the Nikon 'just barely' covers 8x10... or at least that is what the specs say.

I have never run out of room with mine on either the 8x10 Deardorff or 8x10 Sinar. It may 'just barely' cover, but in real world use the images & results show it is more than adequate for most 8x10 use. Having the option of 52mm filters isn't bad either.

[glenn_kroeger]

For 8x10, the G-Claron will have more usable image circle.

 

But for 4x5, the biggest difference is that the G-Claron weighs 460 grams vs. only about 290g for the Nikkor.

[janbecket]

I use both lenses, but with 4X5, so the issue of coverage doesn't come up. However, the G-Claron, despite the lack of multi-coating, does have one fantasitc advantage. A 150 easily converts to a 300 ( or a 305 to a 610, etc.) with no loss of sharpness or coverage, because of the symmetrical design of the lens. It is necessary to remove the front element and use an adapter to add a medium yellow filter. My 150 takes a 40.5 filter with the adapter. Obviously, the conversion only works for B&W, but it does work very well. The adapters can be ordered from Grimes.

 

Jan B.

[michael_chmilar]

Another competitor in this range, if you have not considered it, is the Fuji Compact 300. It is about the same size and weight as the Nikkor. The specs are roughly the same. There may be some small differences in color rendition, contrast, resolution, etc. due to different glass and coatings.

 

I have been using the Fuji for 4x5, and am completely satisfied with it. Choosing the Fuji over the Nikon was mostly a random decision.

[brent_bradley]

The claron is designed for closer up shots the the 300m.