PDA

View Full Version : Schnieder g claron or nikkor m



glrerun
11-Aug-2016, 20:32
I am wanting to purchase a lens for 5x7. I am considering the Schnieder G Claron or the Nikkor M. Will use this lens for most anything, but mostly landscapes and cityscapes. Might also use as a long range portrait lens for on the urban streets.

What are your opinions or comments.

DG 3313
11-Aug-2016, 21:01
I have zero experience with the G Clarion but, I have a 300 M Nikkor. It is a slow lens and focusing can be difficult at times. It is a small, light weight and sharp lens and the only draw back is the speed. I use this lens on 4x5 and 8x10 film and I love it.

John Kasaian
11-Aug-2016, 21:24
I have a 240 G Claron and a 300M I use on 8x10.
They are two different lens formulas---my G is an older Dagor type while the M is a Tessar. The G is single coated while the M is multicoated----this makes no difference to me as I only shoot B&W.
I am partial to the G, but if I were choosing between the two, I'd go with the one in best condition/price. Both are fine lenses.

Ken Lee
12-Aug-2016, 04:26
"I am considering the Schnieder G Claron or the Nikkor M."

For blur rendition you might prefer the Nikkor M: see a few samples here (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/nikkor200m/index.php).

Which focal length are you considering ?

The Nikkor M is available in 200mm and 300mm.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Kreuznach#G-Claron (emphasis added):

"The Grafik-Clarons are 6-element, 4-group, symmetrical plasmat-type lenses with a 64° angle of coverage, designed for 1:1 flat-field reproduction, but can be used as macro lenses at magnifications up to 5:1 as well. It is recommended to stop down to at least than f/22 for use at infinity. They are available in barrel mount, as well as mounted in shutters.

Coverage listed at 1:1

150mm f/9 (for 8x10")
210mm f/9 (for 11x14")
240mm f/9 (for 14x17")
270mm f/9 (for 16x20")
305mm f/9
355mm f/9 (for 20x24")"

Dan Fromm
12-Aug-2016, 06:38
Per Nikon propaganda, @ infinity @f/22 the 200/8 Nikkor-M covers 210 mm and the 300/9 covers 312 mm. The 200's a bit tight for 5x7.

Per Schneider propaganda, @ infinity @ f/22 the 210/9 G-Claron covers 260 mm.

If you want 200 mm or so, the G-Claron is it. For 300 mm or so, either will do well on 5x7.

If you want to see the propaganda, plus more from other makers, links are at https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=8D71BC33C77D1008!1005&authkey=!ACp3Kf30SHN3MwY&ithint=file%2cdocx

glrerun
12-Aug-2016, 08:07
I am looking in the 300m range. Also contemplating a 450mm lens, but I think G Claron does not come bigger than the 9/305. Of course I am sure other alternatives are available. Maybe a Goerz???

Drew Wiley
12-Aug-2016, 08:25
All the later G-Claron lenses in factory shutter were close-range corrected plasmat formula marketed for tabletop photography, but superb even at infinity. But the
literature still retained the older standards of copy cameras, with image circles stated in an extremely conservative manner. So even a 210 G-Claron will cover
8x10 film. In the 300mm focal length, the G will have a substantially bigger usable image circle than the equivalent Nikkor M. Either will be ample for 5x7 work.
The M's were the apogee of tessar design and multicoated. Nice and light too. I wouldn't worry a bit about the f/9 apertures. Both lenses are extremely sharp, but neither have particularly enviable "bokeh'" if that is your intention. For landscape work they're stellar. Nor would I worry about the presence of only single coating on the G. You should shade your lenses regardless. But if you absolutely have to have something multicoated analogous to the 300 G, it would be the
rarer and more expensive Fuji 300A. It's impossible to go wrong with any of these.

John Kasaian
12-Aug-2016, 08:32
G-Clarons went up to 355mm, IIRC.
You might consider Apo Artars, but the older ones will be uncoated while the newer, usually Red Dots, will be single coated like the G Clarons. You often find these in Acme shutters. I've a 14" Apo Artar in a dial set Compur that sees duty aboard a 5x7 and a 19" serves as my long lens on 8x10.

Drew Wiley
12-Aug-2016, 08:34
Ah, another question. G-Clarons were made in 355 as well - giant image circle; but these are in no. 3 shutter, so distinctly heavier. Fuji has a 4-element dialyte
450/12 C-series which some of us utterly love because it is so wonderfully portable (no.1 shutter) and extremely sharp, but not as well macro corrected as the Fuji
A or Schneider G. Nikon's 450 M is in a big 3 shutter, so comparatively heavy for field use. At long bellows extensions like these, bigger shutters and extra weight can lead to excessive vibration on the front standards of field cameras unless they are built like tanks. This is something else to keep in mind. Later Goerz or Kern dagor lenses in these kinds of focal lengths are absurdly overpriced these days, and not worth it in my opinion for typical landscape usage. In fact, I'd call them inferior to the newer kinds of lenses already mentioned. You can find Goerz 4-element Artar lenses reasonably; but I see no real advantage in these either, compared to more modern equivalents.

John Kasaian
12-Aug-2016, 08:56
Unless you're working for, say NASA, it is easy to overthink lenses. Great fun of course but the ultimate test will be what you do with your lens no matter what name is stamped on the barrel.
All the lenses mentioned so far have yielded successful images while mounted on the lens boards of talented photographers, so in my own convoluted way of thinking, I'd be comparing these based on availability, condition and price.
Money you save = film, paper and chemicals.
Which ever flavor you pick, try to budget in a CLA. Sometimes you get lucky, but it's always a good insurance.
Flutot's in Whittier, CA is where all the cool kids send their lenses for CLAs (if Carol can schedule them in.)

Kevin Crisp
12-Aug-2016, 09:09
I have the G Claron in many focal lengths and have been happy with them for 5X7. Contrary to public specs, the 150 covers 5X7 with decent room for movements. The 210, the 240 and 305 all have plenty of image circle and are in the #1 shutter. Beware the R Claron lenses (repro clarons) which have smaller image circles. Awesome lenses, but significantly less coverage. The 305 R Claron covers 5X7 with room for movements, though. They generally fit in the somewhat hard to find #2 Compur shutter.

I know many here are big fans of the M Nikkor lenses, but I have never tried one.

Drew Wiley
12-Aug-2016, 09:59
Since I either have worked, or currently do work, with nearly all the lenses described on this thread, I can summarize my own opinion by stating that, while there
are some differences in the ergonomics of these lenses such as weight, it will be very difficult to discern any real difference on the resultant film exposure itself.
A secondary consideration, investment-wise, will be whether or not a particular lens has realistic sufficient coverage for 8x10 film too, if you later decided to upgrade to that.

IanG
12-Aug-2016, 12:31
The G Claron lenses in shutters are slightly better optimised for Infinity use compared to the barrel mounted versions due to cell spacing. Dan's use of the word Propogander is quite interesting because in the case of G Claron's Schneider were selling off excess stock process lenses as "Budget" LF lenses in shutters. Ken Lee's quote is interesting I think Schneider re-worded the comments but still said that you needed to use f22 for use at Infinity.

The Nikon lenses are modern Tessar designs optimised for general purpose use, the G Clarons as process lenses can have strange effects on close spherical objects as they are flat field lenses, a spherical object appearing egg shaped.

Ian

Dan Fromm
12-Aug-2016, 12:42
Ian, thanks for your comments on Nikkor-Ms. They prompted me to look at the Nikon LF lenses and Apo-Nikkor brochures. This because I'd always believed that the f/9 Nikkor-Ms were remounted tessar type f/9 Apo-Nikkors.

It seems that I was mistaken. Nikkor-Ms' claimed coverages at f/22 are 55 degrees for the 200 and 57 degrees for the 300. The closest tessar type Apo Nikkors' claimed coverages at f/22 are 45 degrees for the 210 and 41 degrees for the 300, both at an unspecified aperture. Interestingly, Nikon claims that the Nikkor-Ms are apochromats.

Drew Wiley
12-Aug-2016, 13:14
Ian - The plastmat G Clarons, marketed in shutter for tabletop photography, are utterly superb at infinity at any reasonable f-stop. But where they truly excel over general-purpose plastmats is in closeup work. The same could be said for the analogous Fuji A series. "Process" Clarons of differing construction are generally in barrel and older, though it is always a possibility someone has repurposed a few of them and mounted them in shutter. When in doubt, ask first. And Dan, there is no relation between Nikon M's (tessar taking lenses) and Nikkor process lenses, either 4-element dialytes or more rarely, less expensive process tessars in barrel. The legitimate predecessor to the M series was the single-coated Q series. Once again, some of you are misunderstanding the literature. The specifications (including image circle at a particular f-stop) for precise apochromatic dot reproduction are far more stringent than those for taking lenses. Therefore, for our own typical applications, the usable image circle for 4-element Apo Nikkors and plasmat G-Clarons is rather huge, well in excess of any tessar, easily 70 degrees rather than 45. Actually, I don't give a damn what the literature says. I use these lenses so know what to expect.

Mark Sampson
12-Aug-2016, 14:43
Having used both lens types, I will agree with Mr. Kasaian. Buy on focal length and physical quality. Optically you can't go wrong either way.

-It's worth noting that the older 'Repro-Claron' lenses are four-element 'Artar' types, not like the more common and more modern 'G-Claron' examples. They have radioactive glass elements and less coverage than the 'G' series lenses. The Repro-Claron was indeed meant to compete with the Goerz Artar lenses; when Schneider took Goerz over they discontinued the Repro-Claron and kept the Apo-Artar in production into the 1990s. They were advertising the Apo-Artar in the photo magazines in those days...

glrerun
13-Aug-2016, 14:04
Based on all of the comments everyone left, I came to the conclusion that I could go either way and still be happy. I just purchased two lenses from a retired high school photography teacher. He sold me a Schnieder G Claron 305mm and a Schnieder Symmar-S 300mm. They appear to be in near mint condition (can see some dust in the 300 Summar), Both are in the late 70's--early 80's vintage. Picked them up for $200 each. I think this is a good buy. Boy that 300 Symmar-S is a huge and heavy lens.

I look forward to trying both lenses out and will post my results. Thank you everybody for your comments, was very helpful.

Courtlux
23-Aug-2016, 22:59
I have a 8x10 pinhole-camera with 150 mm. I will build a fixed 150 mmm camera for landscapes with it. Can I use a Schneider G Claron 150 mm.
What means "Coverage listed at 1:1 150mm f/9" (for 8x10")" ?

IanG
24-Aug-2016, 00:52
1:1 means the G Claron is reproducing something life size with an extension of around 300mm, so you can photograph a flat object (usually artwork) of 10"x8"and it'll be the same size on the 10x8 negative.

Hoever a G Claron doesn't cover 10x8 focussed at infinity, or a perhaps a hyperfocal distance, it does doesn't quite cover 7x5 but easily covers 5x4. If you want a short WA for 10x8 look at the early Carl Zeiss Jena f18 WA Protars, I have a 141mm Ross f16 version that covers 10x8 with slight room for movements.

Ian

Courtlux
24-Aug-2016, 03:43
Thank you !