Difference between G-Clarons and Blue Dot Trigors?

[Greg]

How do G-Clarons compare to Blue Dot Trigors? I used to have Schneider spec sheets on these lenses but must have misplaced them years ago. I now shoot with a 355mm G-Claron on my 11x14 and love the lens. Had a chance to acquire a 355mm Blue Dot Trigor a while back from an estate, but the seller wanted an immediate commitment to purchase the lens, and I just wasn't ready without knowing more about the lens. So passed up on purchasing the Blue Dot Trigor. Was wondering what I had passed up on?
thanks

[chris77]

sorry, but why dont you just google it? plenty info available.

[Greg]

sorry, but why dont you just google it? plenty info available.

Did just that: "14" Trigor will not cover 11X14", "covers 12x20", "Trigor identical to the Dagor". Seems to be a lot of contradictory information posted out there..... Hopefully someone in this Forum has had experience with using both lenses.

[Luis-F-S]

Ok, since no one seems to know, or is interested I'll take a stab at it. I do not own a blue dot trigor. But I do own a 14" G-Claron and a 14" MC Dagor. Since the trigor was a wide angle process lens, I suspect it would be closer to the G-C but that is purely conjecture. I don't know if you'll find someone with both 14" lenses, but if there are any out there, I'd love to hear their input. Doing a Google search will bring up a lot of "opinions" most of which will not be validated. The 14" MC Dagor was sold as an 8x10 lens. I bought mine new in 1987 and still have the box and literature. I also have 240 and 270 G-Clarons of Dagor design. I suspect that after Schneider acquired Goerz, they phased out the Trigor because they already had the G-Claron lens, as they phased out the Artars. L

[Drew Wiley]

Trigor was a process lens with wider coverage than dagors or Artars. Today they sell for much more than either. Even the last 14" dagors were never Apo corrected. Trigors are. But you'd need to add a Copal 3 shutter. They're in barrel. Dagors are not close-range corrected either. But the only advantage of a trigor over a 355GC would be higher contrast. Some people consider Trigor as the holy Grail of LF lenses, and right now they seem to be priced six times as high as G-Clarons, and even distinctly higher than MC Kern dagors due to rarity and cult status, but the functional difference is miniscule. Or someone could simply stumble onto an old process camera in a dumpster with a trigor on it. It's been known to happen. I personally think the holy Grail in this focal length is the 360 Fujinon A, though it's not suitable for ULF due to the no.1 shutter (versus the 3 of the GC). Wonderful for 8x10 and smaller, and lighter wt than any of the above. Yet I also shoot Kern dagors for a slightly different look, but less versatile. GC taking lenses in shutter are not process lenses, but a versatil improved plasmat with excellent close-range performance. Fuji A's likewise, but multicoated. Late dagors have higher contrast due to only four air/glass interfaces, and in the very last rendition, multicoatings too. The only way I'd buy a trigor would be on a salvage basis of old graphics gear. Once something like that hits photo lens listings, the cult pricing skyrockets. I already have a 360 Apo Nikkor too - the best corrected of em all, but suitable only up to 8X10 and just too clinically sharp for my taste.

[karl french]

Um, no.

Trigors have LESS coverage than Dagors. Sharper wide open for sure though. Avoid Schneider Dagors and Trigors if you want coverage. Just sold my 14" Blue Dot because I need something to cover both 8x20 & 12x20. The 355 G-Claron does that quite well. I'm sure on 11x14 either a Goerz or a Schneider 14" Blue Dot Trigor would be a wonderful lens. Really beautiful image quality. I'm partial to the Goerz versions of both.


Goerz Blue dots have really come down in price. Note the $500 example that was just posted recently. I sold my 14" for less than $1000. 10-15 years ago they were $2500 lenses.

[Luis-F-S]

Um, no.

Trigors have LESS coverage than Dagors.

++1!! As I posted above, the 14" MC Dagor is an 8x10 lens. Much less coverage than the Goerz version. For this reason, I always reach for my 12" Golden Dagor instead of the 14" Gold Dot. For 11x14, I have a 355 G-C. Never saw the need to get a Trigor, always had something else of similar quality I could use instead.

[Hugo Zhang]

Trigor can be used on your 11x14 camera, while 14" gold dot Dagor will give you soft corners on 11x14. I have both and use gold dot Dagor for 810. No experiences with G_Clarons.

[Drew Wiley]

Late Dagors have a bit of mechanical vignetting due to being limited to a no.3 shutter. Only 14" were made in the last two generations of em. Older 12" wasn't better corrected; it just had the option of a bigger shutter, so included more of the periphral so-so image circle. They also aren't anywhere near as good as high-performance plasmats like G Claron or Fuji A when it comes to the tangential performance of strong tilts. That's one reason Schneider quit selling em in favor of the GC. I've had em side by side testing, plus many years field experience. Don't get me wrong - there are certain things I prefer Dagors for. I just don't find em as versatile as top notch plasmats.

[Luis-F-S]

Trigor can be used on your 11x14 camera, while 14" gold dot Dagor will give you soft corners on 11x14. I have both and use gold dot Dagor for 810. No experiences with G_Clarons.

Yes because the 14" MC Dagor is an 8x10 lens NOT an 11x14 lens. So while it may illuminate 11x14, it doesn't really cover. The G-Claron covers 11x14 like a champ.