G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

If you had both of these lenses which one would you keep and why? In terms of image taking quality (sharpness, contrast, flare resistance etc) which one is better?

Depends what you are taking a picture of. One is a process lens that can be used at infinity at f16 and the other is a general taking lens and probably not optimal at 1:1 magnification. One is pretty rare and the other not so much. One is multicoated one single. Used within their intended uses they are both excellent lenses. Both cover 8X10. KFry

The Nikon/Nikkor f8 300M is multi-coated, has a larger image circle, and is 30mm longer than the single coated 270 G-Claron.

Both are sharp lenses and cover 8x10 with minimal movements.

A small, 4-element (Tessar), the 300M makes a great long lens for a light weight kit.

Make your decision based on your personal needs.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in.../LF8x10in.html ...

shows the image circle for the 270 G-Claron as 335mm (matches Schneider's published data) vs 325mm for the Nikkor M 300/9 which is about what conventional wisdom suggests one can expect from a tessar.

Some optimists will push either design considerably beyond those limits. For example the 210mm G-Claron is frequently recommended for 8x10 use and the 127mm Kodak Ektar is used on 4x5.

Sometime around 1988 I was shopping for a long lens at Ken Hansen's in NYC. The salesman there told me that the Nikkor-M was better at infinity and that the 300 G-Claron was better close up. I bought the Nikkor and have never looked back; it's a superb lens on 4x5. I've used a 150/9 G-Claron for closeup work and it was perfect at that. A look around this forum will show you that the G-Clarons are very well-respected lenses, with a fine reputation for sharpness and coverage. I'd say that you can't go wrong with either lens- although sometimes I wish my 300 was a 360.

You did not mention format, which makes some difference.

I have both lenses. I don't like the Nikkor 300 on 8x10 because it lacks coverage. So for 8x10, I would use the G-Claron.

For 4x5, the Nikkor is excellent, multicoated, has massive coverage, and is very compact with small filter size. Hard to beat that.

Wassamattau?

You've been crying about wanting a 270 G-Claron for a couple of years and rejecting suggested alternatives. You finally got your heart's desire. Now that you have it does it fail to please?

I've not used a Nikkor 300M, but I do have a Nikkor 200M and a 270 G-Claron.

I think the answer is not in the quality of the lens but which focal length you like best as you use them in the field. Sharpness is not an issue with either, the Nikkor being multicoated is likely a bit more contrasty, which is not necessarily a good thing. I never noticed much flare with the G-Claron, but the size of the front glass is not large and I usually shade my lenses with the dark slide if in light bright enough to cast a shadow.

Cheers, Steve

Steve, I guess I am in a similar position to you.. I have both and I am deciding whether to let one go. They actually don't seem to have much different fov on the 4x5 gg. Maybe I will just shoot them both and which one I like. I was also thinking of perhaps trading the 300mm got a fujinon 400t.. But I am not sure how much more 'magnofication" will I get... What is your experience with the 270 vs 300 Steve? Are you keeping both and why?

The published image circles for G-Clarons are in reference to their use as either process lenses or at 1:1 magnification. For typical large-format use, the usable image
circle is much bigger. Even a 210 G-Claron will cover 8x10, and I wouldn't be surprised
if the 270 has a circle even bigger than a 300 Nikkor M. The single coating is largely
a non-issue and is plenty flare-resistant with common-sense use, and color saturation
is excellent. Both lenses have their strong points.