I am wanting to purchase a lens for 5x7. I am considering the Schnieder G Claron or the Nikkor M. Will use this lens for most anything, but mostly landscapes and cityscapes. Might also use as a long range portrait lens for on the urban streets.
What are your opinions or comments.
I have zero experience with the G Clarion but, I have a 300 M Nikkor. It is a slow lens and focusing can be difficult at times. It is a small, light weight and sharp lens and the only draw back is the speed. I use this lens on 4x5 and 8x10 film and I love it.
I have a 240 G Claron and a 300M I use on 8x10.
They are two different lens formulas---my G is an older Dagor type while the M is a Tessar. The G is single coated while the M is multicoated----this makes no difference to me as I only shoot B&W.
I am partial to the G, but if I were choosing between the two, I'd go with the one in best condition/price. Both are fine lenses.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
"I am considering the Schnieder G Claron or the Nikkor M."
For blur rendition you might prefer the Nikkor M: see a few samples here.
Which focal length are you considering ?
The Nikkor M is available in 200mm and 300mm.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnei...znach#G-Claron (emphasis added):
"The Grafik-Clarons are 6-element, 4-group, symmetrical plasmat-type lenses with a 64° angle of coverage, designed for 1:1 flat-field reproduction, but can be used as macro lenses at magnifications up to 5:1 as well. It is recommended to stop down to at least than f/22 for use at infinity. They are available in barrel mount, as well as mounted in shutters.
Coverage listed at 1:1
150mm f/9 (for 8x10")
210mm f/9 (for 11x14")
240mm f/9 (for 14x17")
270mm f/9 (for 16x20")
305mm f/9
355mm f/9 (for 20x24")"
Per Nikon propaganda, @ infinity @f/22 the 200/8 Nikkor-M covers 210 mm and the 300/9 covers 312 mm. The 200's a bit tight for 5x7.
Per Schneider propaganda, @ infinity @ f/22 the 210/9 G-Claron covers 260 mm.
If you want 200 mm or so, the G-Claron is it. For 300 mm or so, either will do well on 5x7.
If you want to see the propaganda, plus more from other makers, links are at https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...nt=file%2cdocx
I am looking in the 300m range. Also contemplating a 450mm lens, but I think G Claron does not come bigger than the 9/305. Of course I am sure other alternatives are available. Maybe a Goerz???
All the later G-Claron lenses in factory shutter were close-range corrected plasmat formula marketed for tabletop photography, but superb even at infinity. But the
literature still retained the older standards of copy cameras, with image circles stated in an extremely conservative manner. So even a 210 G-Claron will cover
8x10 film. In the 300mm focal length, the G will have a substantially bigger usable image circle than the equivalent Nikkor M. Either will be ample for 5x7 work.
The M's were the apogee of tessar design and multicoated. Nice and light too. I wouldn't worry a bit about the f/9 apertures. Both lenses are extremely sharp, but neither have particularly enviable "bokeh'" if that is your intention. For landscape work they're stellar. Nor would I worry about the presence of only single coating on the G. You should shade your lenses regardless. But if you absolutely have to have something multicoated analogous to the 300 G, it would be the
rarer and more expensive Fuji 300A. It's impossible to go wrong with any of these.
G-Clarons went up to 355mm, IIRC.
You might consider Apo Artars, but the older ones will be uncoated while the newer, usually Red Dots, will be single coated like the G Clarons. You often find these in Acme shutters. I've a 14" Apo Artar in a dial set Compur that sees duty aboard a 5x7 and a 19" serves as my long lens on 8x10.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Ah, another question. G-Clarons were made in 355 as well - giant image circle; but these are in no. 3 shutter, so distinctly heavier. Fuji has a 4-element dialyte
450/12 C-series which some of us utterly love because it is so wonderfully portable (no.1 shutter) and extremely sharp, but not as well macro corrected as the Fuji
A or Schneider G. Nikon's 450 M is in a big 3 shutter, so comparatively heavy for field use. At long bellows extensions like these, bigger shutters and extra weight can lead to excessive vibration on the front standards of field cameras unless they are built like tanks. This is something else to keep in mind. Later Goerz or Kern dagor lenses in these kinds of focal lengths are absurdly overpriced these days, and not worth it in my opinion for typical landscape usage. In fact, I'd call them inferior to the newer kinds of lenses already mentioned. You can find Goerz 4-element Artar lenses reasonably; but I see no real advantage in these either, compared to more modern equivalents.
Unless you're working for, say NASA, it is easy to overthink lenses. Great fun of course but the ultimate test will be what you do with your lens no matter what name is stamped on the barrel.
All the lenses mentioned so far have yielded successful images while mounted on the lens boards of talented photographers, so in my own convoluted way of thinking, I'd be comparing these based on availability, condition and price.
Money you save = film, paper and chemicals.
Which ever flavor you pick, try to budget in a CLA. Sometimes you get lucky, but it's always a good insurance.
Flutot's in Whittier, CA is where all the cool kids send their lenses for CLAs (if Carol can schedule them in.)
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks