G-Claron 150 vs. Nikkor 150

[Luca Merlo]

I have been offered recently a G-Claron 150 F9 mounted on a Copal 0 and I am wondering the quality of B&W pictures taken with this lens can match the quality of my other Nikkor lenses (SW 90, M 200, M 300). In alternative, I could buy,at virtually the same price, a Nikkor M 150. In this case, what would be your choice ?

[Robert Skeoch]

The Nikkor. I find the G-claron's over rated. I own the 240mm G-Claron. It's a good lens, but not as good as the hype seemed to indicate.
-Rob Skeoch

[Joseph O'Neil]

Nikon. I imagine the Nikon is a lot faster than F9. Ever use an F9 lens? Terrible in low light situations.

I have a Red Dot Artar, and like the G-Clarons, very nice lenses, but both are, IMO, a bit over rated compared to new lenses.

joe

[Michael Kadillak]

No brainer. Get the Nikon.

When coverage becomes a dominant criteria, (ie. 150mm G Claron on 5x7, 305mm on 7x17 or 355 G Claron on 8x20 for example) then one is willing to sacrfice a bit of contrast for coverage. G Clarons are sharper than a razor blade but one should not unnecessarily bypass all the contrast you can get your hands on if you have the coverage issue resolved for the format you will be shooting.

Cheers!

[Eric Brody]

You may have better info than I do, but I did not know there is a 150 M Nikkor.

I own a 150 W Nikkor, a very sharp compact f/5.6 lens. I cannot comment about the G-Claron but have a number of LF Nikkors all of which are quite excellent. Indeed, as most of us know, there are only minimal differences between modern LF lenses from the major players, Nikon (now sadly out of the LF lens business), Schneider, Rodenstock and Fuji.

Good luck.

[Luca Merlo]

thanks to all of you for the kind answers. I will get then the Nikkor.

[Brian Ellis]

I've used a 150 G Claron, a 210 G Claron, and a 240 G Claron. All were excellent lenses. With lenses of this focal length I didn't find it difficult to compose and focus at F9. The smaller maximum apertures are a problem mainly with shorter focal length lenses, as the focal length goes up it becomes less and less of a problem. I have no idea whether the Nikon is better or worse than the 150 G Claron (and I note that no one who responded said they had used both so I'm not sure why the unanimity of opinion that the Nikon is the one to buy). I suspect either would do fine. I'd base the decision on other factors such as size, weight, cost, condition, coverage, etc.

"I have a Red Dot Artar, and like the G-Clarons, very nice lenses, but both are, IMO, a bit over rated compared to new lenses."

Schneider only stopped making the G Clarons about three years ago. How new do you want? If you're thinking of "new" in terms of design, Nikon hasn't done a thing that I know of to its LF lenses in twenty five or thirty years. If you call Nikon and ask a question about one of their LF lenses you'll be hard pressed to find someone who knows what a LF format lens is and even harder pressed to find someone who knows that Nikon makes them. I've only used one Nikon lens, a 135mm, and it was fine, I'm not knocking Nikon lenses but if "new" designs are important I wouldn't look to Nikon lenses. Schneider seems to be the only LF lens manufacturer that's making a consisent effort to upgrade and improve its line of LF lenses.

[Nick_3536]

I've got a 150mm Claron. I've also got an older Xenar 150mm. The Xenar gave up it's shutter to a 240 Claron so it's currently shutterless. Truth is I keep thinking of finding a replacement for the 150mm Claron. Does it take good pictures? Yup. Does it have great coverage? Yup. But I find my sample very dark to focus. Much harder then the longer 240mm. I find no problems at all with the 240mm but the 150mm is way darker then I'd like. I'm not really sure why either. My 105mm Fuji F/8 is much easier to focus. Maybe it's me.