How about a 240 G Claron example thread?

[John Kasaian]

After the spirit of the the 10"/250mm WF Ektar thread, and for the benefit those in the market of an 8x10 lens.
Personally I find the 240 G Claron probably my most used 8x10 lens because it is lightweight, small, and brilliantly sharp while having ample coverage on 8x10 at f/32. Since my subjects are most often landscapes and involve some hiking, being lightweight is something I really appreciate! Until recently (maybe still?) they were quite affordable and if you are on a tight budget barrel versions went for a pittance allowing you to used it without a shutter until a Copal 1 or Prontor that was screw-in capable could be saved up for.
Fred Picker made the 240 G Claron a "legend" and Jim Galli championed the "G" on this very forum (the "G" does stand for "Galli" does it not?:o)

So if you have or know of any examples of work done with a 240 G Claron, please link them here to exemplify what sort of "look" is possible and inspire us all

[Kevin Crisp]

I note the trend in threads like this, but in many instances, what difference does it make? Is there anyone who could consistently look at their monitor and see any different "look" between a 240 GC, an single coated convertible 240 Symmar, an APO Symmar, a 240 Nikkor, etc.?

The G Clarons and R Clarons are fine lenses, and I use 240 GC's all the time, and they are small and light, but do they have some unique, inspiring look?

[dave_whatever]

I'm not convinced this lens stopped down has much of a distinct look, but here is a shot for starters: 5x4" Velvia 100 with an older dagor-type 240/9 GC:

http://www.daveparryphotography.co.uk/imgs/gallery/19792/19792_66254931351588189edf3a.jpg

[John Kasaian]

I note the trend in threads like this, but in many instances, what difference does it make? Is there anyone who could consistently look at their monitor and see any different "look" between a 240 GC, an single coated convertible 240 Symmar, an APO Symmar, a 240 Nikkor, etc.?

The G Clarons and R Clarons are fine lenses, and I use 240 GC's all the time, and they are small and light, but do they have some unique, inspiring look?

Kevin, I find G Clarons are sharp in comparison with other, more vintage lenses, but a truly unique look? No.
But the reason for threads like this is to show what accomplished photographers can achieve with an older, commonly available lens so new guys can be inspired by the potentiality 80 square inches of emulsion is pretty impressive and I think people can get intimidated thinking that only the newe$t len$ can take advantage of that potential while the reality is that many of us collect fine images with last century's glass.
Threads have been started exploring much older lenses, but the glass of more recent History----often more readily available and at lower cost than antiques--- have sort of fallen through the cracks.
If you were starting with an 8x10 and have a modest budget, which lens would you consider? If it were me, I'd appreciate seeing examples of what others have done with the same model/focal length lens I'm contemplating. The 240 G Clarons I feel are, like the 10" Wide Fields, examples of what's out there but the nagging question is what have contemporary photographers achieved with them?
Setting aside other, far more important factors (like experience, originality, great subjects, and a gifted eye) what do pictures taken with such lenses look like?
APO Artars, Velostigmats, Convertible Symmars, Acugons, Ektars, and G Clarons are all---for new LF'ers--- just a confusion of names without examples of what can be done with 'em on a sheet of film:)
That's what I was hoping a thread like this might provide.