G-Claron 240mm Lenses

[Dave_B]

Folks:
I have two different copies of the Schneider G-Claron 240mm f9 lens. One has a serial number in the 11.9M range and has a ~46mm thread. The other has a serial number of ~14.1M, and has a 52mm thread. From what I have learned by checking previous posts, the earlier one is a Dagor type (6/2) and the later one a Plasmat (6/4). The IC of the older one is given as 321mm and the newer one as 298mm although many folks claim to get much larger IC's as you stop down. How much larger seems to be a subject of some dispute. Some very big numbers have been suggested.
My question is, has anyone actually used both of these lenses and have an opinion on which performs better? I will not be getting an 8x10 camera for a while (it is on order) and I was wondering if it made sense to get the Dagor mounted into a shutter or is the Plasmat going to be a superior performer? My assumption from my reading is that both are likely to be single coated although if anyone knows otherwise, that would be useful information as well.
Thanks,
Dave B.

[John Kasaian]

Dave,
Mine is, according to Jim Galli's post from a long time ago, a dagor type. It is a fine lens for an 8x10---it's very sharp with plenty of wiggle room for movements.

Don't sweat the lens stuff. It should work beautifully for you providing you do your part. :)

[Jim Galli]

Yes, I have used both, and we're splitting hairs here, but there's just something about the way the earlier one divvies up the contrast that I love. My keepers are 150, 225, 270, and 305mm. All early dagor type. 225??? you ask. Long ago I bought it from a chap in England. It has the 240 front and a 210 rear. It may be the best performer of all of them. Best of all it's worthless so I'm never tempted to sell it. :D:D

[Dave_B]

John, Jim:
Thank you.
Dave B.

[Michael Gudzinowicz]

Are you sure that the older 6/2 lens isn't a Graphic Claron, and the newer 6/4 design, a G Claron? Completely different lenses...

[Joseph O'Neil]

Are you sure that the older 6/2 lens isn't a Graphic Claron, and the newer 6/4 design, a G Claron? Completely different lenses...

I've run into that too myself - I have the 270mm G-Claron, but the 270mm you often see for sale on Ebay is the "copy" Claron.

Also to muddy up the waters, there was a complete series of "C" Clarons, usually no iris in them, made - I think - for copy machine work. I have a190mm myself, but no way I know of to mount it.

Point is, there are a lot of different lines from Schneider that use the "Claron" name.

joe

[Kevin Crisp]

The C Clarons are fabulous, they just don't have nearly as much coverage as the G Clarons. And they can turn tea colored due to radioactive elements. (Easy to clear up with an UV light) And they don't fit so easily in shutters, some of them. That being said, they are some of my favorites, particularly the 305 and the 210.

[Chauncey Walden]

Michael, two different formulas but both G (as in Graphic) Clarons. Here's the link to the data on the older of the two: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/g_claron.pdf

[Kevin Crisp]

I meant repro-clarons in my post, not c clarons. Sorry about that.

[Dave_B]

Michael, two different formulas but both G (as in Graphic) Clarons. Here's the link to the data on the older of the two: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/g_claron.pdf

Chauncey:
This brochure describes the older of my two lenses. The photo on the front is exactly the lens I have (mine is a 240). The dimensions match those given in the table. From the brochure, it looks like the IC at f22 at infinity is 319mm. Both lenses I have are clearly marked "G-Claron". The older lens is much smaller than the newer one. They are clearly different beasts. My German has faded some since college but the brochure seems to say that Grafic-Claron and G-Claron are the same thing.
Thanks,
Dave B.