View Full Version : Difference between G-Claron and Repro-Claron

Jim Andrada
15-Oct-2014, 17:45
I see a lot of discussion about G-Clarons but hardly ever hear about the Repro Claron. I have a 305 Repro-Claron that I bought new around 1973 and used on my 5 x 7 Kardan Bi. I mainly did somewhat close-up work with it and really liked it. I don't think I've dome any landscapes with it though

How do you think it compares to a G-Claron at somewhat longer distances?

15-Oct-2014, 18:01
never have used a G claron before but I have the same 305 as you and shoot landscapes with it often, great lens IMO, here is an example on 4x5

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3892/15087502757_1e962a2971.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/oZeoVT)Dusty Dixie Road (https://flic.kr/p/oZeoVT) by goldenimageworks65 (https://www.flickr.com/people/126756312@N03/), on Flickr

15-Oct-2014, 18:02
I am assuming that the G claron has a much larger IC than the repro

Jim Galli
15-Oct-2014, 18:09
Repro Claron's are fine lenses and I think probably every bit the equivalent of the legendary Red Dot Artar's, and with the same caveats. Angle of view is like 50 degrees to the G-Claron's 82 degrees. And most of them were not sold in shutter, so that's something that causes them to be used less. As I recall the 305 Repro Claron would fit in a #2 Compur which is an odd duck to find. I've owned several over the years and don't think I have any of them any more.

15-Oct-2014, 18:11
thanks for that information Jim, my repro is in a copal 1 and its the radioactive one too : )

Mark Sampson
15-Oct-2014, 19:16
There was a lengthy thread here a while back about Repro-Clarons. From that, IIRC, the R-C was Schneider's competitor to the Goerz RD Artars, but when Schneider acquired Goerz in the early '70s they kept the more famous lens line and dropped the R-C. Could be true, seeing that Schneider was advertising their Apo-Artar in the early '90s.

Jim Andrada
15-Oct-2014, 20:43
Here are a couple I shot with the Repro Claron on the Linhof 5 x 7. I never had any issues with it and I just mounted it into a Technika board - I'll see how it likes 4 x 5!

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8066/8158893256_2839f861bd_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/dqYsHo)Chevy, Chelsea, Massachusetts, About 1971 (https://flic.kr/p/dqYsHo) by Kirigakuresaizoh (https://www.flickr.com/people/89514126@N05/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/9698845504_0fda6e3925_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/fM47Sd)Painted Metal (https://flic.kr/p/fM47Sd) by Kirigakuresaizoh (https://www.flickr.com/people/89514126@N05/), on Flickr

I think it did quite nicely at separating the textures.

15-Oct-2014, 21:21
Well, Schneider probably would tell you Repro-Clarons are probably "better" lenses than the G-Claron because they have use rare earth glass in their construction.

However, they "glow in the dark", just like Voigtländer Apo-Lanthar's. My Repro-Claron's do make nice images but like the Apo-Lanthar's, they do not get much use or special preference because they are not superior in anyway despite the use of radioactive glass to improve their performance.

Here are some pictures showing my 305 Repro-Claron registering noticeably higher radioactivity compared to a garden-variety 210 Symmar on my Geiger counter.

Drew Wiley
17-Oct-2014, 10:05
Can't say, cause I don't have any experience with Repro Clarons. But G-Clarons are superb all the way from closeup to infinity and sharper than general purpose
plasmats, and have a lot of coverage reasonably stopped down. I do have a number of other process lenses of the same vintage and they're just ridiculously sharp, but once you're anywhere in this league with large format, you'd have to be making some obscenely big prints to ever tell the difference between which
took what. There are minor differences in contrast due to the nature of the coatings, etc.