210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

[Cor]

So I have these 2 lenses in 210 mm for 4*5:

A f5.6 210 mm Symmar (chrome on the outside), single coated, in an older Synchro Compur (old shutter speed range), single coated

A f9 G-Claron 210 mm mounted in a Polaroid Copal 1, I guess single coated.

The Claron is about half the weight of the Symmar, but more than a stop slower.

When enlarging negatives to 40*50 cm (most frequent size) or 50*60 (max in my tiny darkroom) would there be discernible differences (yes I will run that test.. ..) ?


Best,

Cor

[E. von Hoegh]

Close up, you might see a tiny difference in favor of the G-Claron. They are both Plasmats.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know the exact vintage of your G-Claron, but generally they are going to be
optically superior to the Symmar.

[IanG]

I don't know the exact vintage of your G-Claron, but generally they are going to be
optically superior to the Symmar.

Other way around. The G Claron will only be superior for flat field copy work which they are optimised for. These lenses are designed for close distances not infinity.

Ian

[John Kasaian]

Horses for courses. Use the G-Claron when you're packing in since it's lighter. Use the Symmar when light is scarce since it will be easier to focus.
You've got it made in the shade, pal!

[dave_whatever]

G clarons are supposed to be optimised for closeup, but this doesn't mean they will be less sharp that other lenses at non-macro distances. I know that of my landscape shots at 150mm I can't tell from the film if I used my g claron or symmar-s. I suspect the same is true of the 210mm.

[IanG]

G clarons are supposed to be optimised for closeup, but this doesn't mean they will be less sharp that other lenses at non-macro distances. I know that of my landscape shots at 150mm I can't tell from the film if I used my g claron or symmar-s. I suspect the same is true of the 210mm.

Macro lenses aren't as critically sharp at Infinity as a standard lens and with process/repro lenses there can be issues of sdistortion when used at longer distances compared to a Symmar/Sironar etc.

Some G Claron's were spaced to give better results at Infinity but Scneider never actually recommended them, rather they stated they could be used for longer distances.

Another issue Schneider raise is they can vignette wider than f16 when used at infinity and should be used at f22 or smaller, the angle of view and image circle is much less than a Symmar at infinity.

Ian

[John NYC]

Macro lenses aren't as critically sharp at Infinity as a standard lens and with process/repro lenses there can be issues of sdistortion when used at longer distances compared to a Symmar/Sironar etc.

Some G Claron's were spaced to give better results at Infinity but Scneider never actually recommended them, rather they stated they could be used for longer distances.

Another issue Schneider raise is they can vignette wider than f16 when used at infinity and should be used at f22 or smaller, the angle of view and image circle is much less than a Symmar at infinity.

Ian

Ian, how extensively have you used G-Clarons yourself in the field?

[IanG]

Ian, how extensively have you used G-Clarons yourself in the field?

I've used both G Clarons and GRII Hexanons (my 150mm GRII covers 10x8) so I've experience of the pros & cons of using Repro/Process lenses for landscape work. I first tried a G Claron back in the mid 1970's.

What's important is how a lens works for your own photography, where possible I need a lens that doesn't itroduce unecessary distortions.

I think it was Michael Langford who published a comparison of the spherical distortions of using a process lens at infinity compared to a Symmar, a round ball at the edge of the image looked fine with a Symmar but was quite distorted with a process lens. My own 1970's tests showed similar issues, these were done at work rather than for my personal photography.

Ian

[John NYC]

I've used both G Clarons and GRII Hexanons (my 150mm GRII covers 10x8) so I've experience of the pros & cons of using Repro/Process lenses for landscape work. I first tried a G Claron back in the mid 1970's.

What's important is how a lens works for your own photography, where possible I need a lens that doesn't itroduce unecessary distortions.

I think it was Michael Langford who published a comparison of the spherical distortions of using a process lens at infinity compared to a Symmar, a round ball at the edge of the image looked fine with a Symmar but was quite distorted with a process lens. My own 1970's tests showed similar issues, these were done at work rather than for my personal photography.

Ian

If you are only talking about rectilinear distortions at the frame edges on mid-distance object on 8x10 (not 4x5) for these lenses, then I agree with you for the 240mm but not for the 305mm. But you were making broad statements about these lenses that I simply don't think you can apply with a blanket like that.

Sharpness, for instance, is certainly not an issue.

In short, I don't think you are going to be able to tell if I used a 305 G-Claron or a Symmar on 8x10 for most practical purposes.