355 G-Claron Questions

[Robert McClure]

Just recently acquired a 355 G-Claron. I was curious about a couple of things and would appreciate some information. Thanks!

Seems a pretty hefty lens (and #3 shutter). Is the size and weight related to its covering ability? I bought it specifically to cover 7x17 at infinity and to still have some room for movements.

How old is the design? Did the designers assume portability was not a real issue since it was originally intended to be used in, more or less, dedicated graphic arts camera applications?

Is the fact that this lens seems to only begin to get sharp at f22 and smaller a result of its 1:1 optimization.

Regards!

[Oren Grad]

Robert, speculation about why the 355 G-Claron is so big really has it backwards. For the focal length and coverage it offers, it is in fact relatively small - that's one of its main attractions. The mainline 360 plasmats like the Apo-Symmar and Apo-Sironar-N/S are much larger and heavier.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Yes, Oren has it correct. The 355/9 G-Claron is a small lens. Its size is due to its smaller maximum aperture of f9. As for design, it is a plasmat which has been tweaked for 1:1 coverage. The Plasmat is basically a Dagor with a separated/air-spaced elements. It was designed in the early part of the 20th century by Paul Rudolf for Hugo Meyer. Rudolf also designed the Tessar for Zeiss.

[sanking]

Robert,

Your 355mm f/9 G-Claron is most likely of plasmat design. I say most likely because early G-Clarons were actually of Dagor type design.

As for coverage your 355mm G-Claron will cover 7X17 with lots of movement. In fact, it will even cover 12X20, with just a bit of movement.

[John O'Connell]

The 355 G-Claron would be much more popular if it fit in a #1 shutter, but all of the standard 6-element G-Clarons are f/9.

The 355 isn't as high contrast as the shorter standard plasmats, but I've used mine at f/11 and f/16 without being unhappy with the results on 8x10. Are you complaining about soft corners on 7x17 or is your 355 actually soft overall?

[Dan Fromm]

Robert, I can't address plasmat type G-Clarons directly, but I've had three 240/9 dagor types. Sold 'em, and before I sold 'em I tried each out on a Nikon to evaluate central sharpness. I was curious, also didn't want to sell bad lenses misrepresented as good. At f/9, f/16, and f/22 at ~ 1 m and ~ 300 m each was pretty damn good on 35 mm.

I'm surprised that yours is unsharp at larger apertures than f/22. How are you measuring?

According to Schneider's propaganda, the plasmats give better image quality at the margins than the dagors. Schneider claims the plasmats are apochromatic, doesn't make the claim for the dagors. I examined the Ektachromes I took with my three 240s at 12x, saw no color fringing.

At this point, if I needed a focal length and the price for a G-Claron in that focal length was right (important consideration for me), I wouldn't hesitate to get it. And if I had one I wouldn't hesitate to use it at all distances.

[CXC]

I was pleased with my G-Claron 240mm from the day I got it, partly because it is nice and compact. So I was nonplussed and disappointed when I ordered a 355mm, and it turned out to be big as a melon, heavy as a chunk of granite. 1.5 times as long, but 2.5 times as heavy!? What's up with that? Puts a real strain on the extension when you rack that thing out.

Works fine, though. Plenty sharp at f/22 or above, which I never shoot opener than.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

For what ever its worth, according to the Schneider site, only plasmat type lenses were made in 355mm, Dagors were all shorter.

I think the f/22 thing comes from either the manufactures recommendations or standard stat-camera practice, since (as I recall) by f/22 optical aberrations are gone (a major concern for repro-work) and diffraction hasn't really kicked in.

I have used my 355/9 G-Claron open wide on both 5x7 and 11x14, and it appears to perform just fine.

[Oren Grad]

The "f/22 thing" probably comes from Schneider. The G-Claron brochure that I have on file says this:

The G-CLARON is a lens of symmetrical design with six elements in four groups, optimised for 1:1 reproduction. The normally used range of linear magnification is between 5:1 and 1:5. Due to the advantageous price/performance relationship the G-CLARON may also be used for distances up to infinity by stopping down to f/22 or less.

[Jim Galli]

Robert, The 355 is teensy compared to the f11 WA 270 G-Claron. It really is the smallest lens that will throw a circle big enough for a 12X20! 305 G-Claron covers the 717 nicely and is in the smaller Copal 1 package. And I concur that both early and late style 355's are plasmat's.

[medform-norm]

we found a minty Schneider 360mm/5.6 lens for $5 on some book fair. Am still looking for a way of mounting the darn thing. Already have gotten a shutter for it, an old Luc front mounting thing. Your lens is a baby compared to the 360mm (which is a componon, not a G-claron)! Just to put things in perspective a bit...
Norm

[Robert McClure]

Thanks, all!

John, no complaints so far on my lens being soft.

Regards!

[sanking]

"The 355 is teensy compared to the f11 WA 270 G-Claron. It really is the smallest lens that will throw a circle big enough for a 12X20!"

Jim,

I assume that what you mean by the smallest lens that will throw a circle big enough for a 12X20 you mean the smallest G-Claron?

The 305 f/9 Computar is quite a bit smaller than the 355 G-Claron and throws a circle that is about two inches larger.

[Robert McClure]

Sandy,

How would you compare/contrast the 305 f9 Computar with the 305 G-Claron?

Other than their being 2" different in fl, what about your Computar versus the 355 G-Claron?

I am thinking about adding another lens to my kit which also includes a 12" f6.8 Dagor.

Thanks!

[CXC]

""The 355 is teensy compared to the f11 WA 270 G-Claron. It really is the smallest lens that will throw a circle big enough for a 12X20!""

Jim,

I assume that what you mean by the smallest lens that will throw a circle big enough for a 12X20 you mean the smallest G-Claron?"

Yeah, and longer lenses will cover 12x20 with less glass, e.g. a Fuji C 450.

[sanking]

"How would you compare/contrast the 305 f9 Computar with the 305 G-Claron?

Other than their being 2" different in fl, what about your Computar versus the 355 G-Claron? "

Both the Computar and G-Claron are plasmat type lenses and there is very little difference between them in terms of performance. But the 305 Computar covers a lot more than the 305 G-Claron, in fact it covers about two inches more than the 355 G-Claron. When I bought my 305 Computar I had a 305 and 355 G-Claron but wound up selling them both to support the cost of the Computar.

Of course, in order to take advantage of the big coverage of Computars you *must* stop the lens down to f/45 or f/64, otherwise the image will be real soft on the corners. I made this mistake the past weekend taking a shot of the bridge at Natchez, Mississippi with a 270 mm Computar on 7X17. Because of reduced light I made a few exposures at f/16, and they are dramatically softer on the corner than the ones I made at f/64 from the same spot.

[Robert McClure]

Thanks again to all! Info much appreciated!