G Claron question

[Ben Calwell]

Those of you who shoot with Schneider G Clarons, which I understand are single-coated -- do they give good contrast? I'm considering a 305mm G Claron.
I've got a real old Schneider 180 that's single-coated, and I've always thought that it rendered everything a tad flat (extended development in Pyro doesn't seem to help).
What's your experience with the G Clarons? Good contrast? Thanks in advance.

[Diane Maher]

I have several G-Clarons and haven't really noticed any flatness in my contrast. Maybe I just don't know what to look for as far as flat contrast, but I'm happy with all my negs shot with them. I have the 210, 240 & 355 G-Clarons.

[Ralph Barker]

I have only the 240mm, but I've been happy with it. But, I don't uusually shoot under circumstances where the differences between single- and multi-coating would be noticed.

[Terence McDonagh]

I have a 150mm, 210mm and 355mm. All are pretty contrasty for the landscape shooting I do. To be honest, my most contrasty lens is an uncoated 19" Artar I have. Coatings help, but I think the lens design matters more unless you're shooting at a bright light source.

[Kevin Crisp]

I've used the 150, the 210, the 240, the 270, the 305 and the 355. I have never noticed negatives to look any flatter compared to a multicoated modern plasmat. The 305 is a great lens, which is why it has been praised so often on this forum. The jump from uncoated to coated is significant, say from the original plasmat to a coated 1950's lens, the jump from coated to multicoated much less so.

[Christopher Perez]

Yes. GClarons give good contrast.

I've used several in various focal lengths over the years. And a 355 I traded for another lens ended up giving my buddy a really crisp contrasty 7x17 neg on an overcast day. People who see the Pt/Pd print are favorably impressed.

So, no contrast issues with GClarons in my experience.

[Ben Calwell]

I just looked at my old Schneider 180, and I'm thinking that maybe it isn't coated at all. Are you supposed to see at least one color on the lens when you hold it under a light? With my modern Nikkor, I see cool looking colors when I hold it under my lamp, but with the old Schneider, I see no colors at all.

[Kevin Crisp]

Ben: What's the serial number of the lens? If it is really old, does it have a red triangle on the ring?

[Christopher Perez]

I have a coated Schneider convertable (210mm) that shows little to no color return on reflection.

Check the serial number of your lens and see when it was made (see Schneider's website). Also open the shutter with the preview lever and point the lens toward bright light.

When I did this on my 210 it showed some haziness due to evaporated oil between the elements. I disassembled one of the element groups and corrected the problem. Now the lens is nice and contrasty again.

[Ben Calwell]

Kevin -- It's a Linhof badged Schneider convertible. The serial number looks like 0277 (it's the only number I could find). I think the shutter is a compur? Speeds from 10 to 25 to 50, etc.
Christopher -- I held it up to the light as you suggested, and it does look pretty crappy in there.

[Kevin Crisp]

That's the number on the ring around the front element? It converts to a 315mm? The coating usually looks just a little bluish on the early ones.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I have a 240 G-claron and I find it on par with any modern lens. I bought it because I could no longer afford to get another 10" wide field Ektar like the one I should have never sold. I stated on this forum that there was none better than that lens, then came back later, describing the taste of humble pie after trying the claron.Don't worry,be happy.

[Aaron van de Sande]

Mr. Grimes told me some years ago that a perfect coating would be invisible, and that fancy looking coatings were done more for marketing purposes.

[John O'Connell]

For a while I used a 355 G-Claron and a 210 Sironar on 8x10 contemporaneously. I ended up selling the Sironar because it didn't cover enough for reasonable movements, but it was definitely sharper and more contrasty than the G-Claron on chromes and in contact prints.

Part of the issue might be that longer lenses reputedly have lower sharpness and contrast than shorter lenses of the same design. I'm not sure whether that is true, as the 210 Sironar was certainly as sharp (or sharper) than my 150.

I still use the G-Claron without hesitation, because it is definitely sharp and contrasty enough, but I don't think it's as good as modern multicoated taking plasmats.

[Jon Wilson]

Here is an example of my 150mm g-claron with velvia. IMO it has nice contrast.http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=9854&cat=500&ppuser=2399

[John Kasaian]

The 240 G Claron is one of my most used lenses on the 8x10. Its got lots of contrast. I think you'll like them a lot!