How Do You Like Your G-Clarons?

[jonathan smith]

I was thinking of purchasing a G-Claron because they seem to have wide coverage, and aren't too big or heavy, and I was wondering how their owners feel about th em.

[Alan Barton]

I have a 305 G-Claron for 8x10 use (have also used as portrait for 4x5). Super sharp, great coverage, not too big (F9 is the compromise, good edge to edge performance. Nothing negative to say.

Alan Barton

[Jeff Scott]

Get as many of them as you can!!!!!!! I currently have the 240mm and 305mm G-Clarons and I used to have the 270mm lens. They have a lot of coverage and are extremely sharp and contrasty. In fact they are my favorite and most used lenses.

[joe freeman]

I have a 210 that I use on my 8x10. Covers with no problem, just don't go crazy with movements. It is very sharp and very compact and light. A copal 0.

[clay harmon]

They are great! I use the 305 on my 8x10 and my 7x17, and the 355 is my favorite lens on the 7x17. I also use the 355 on my 14x17 - it covers fine! For 14x17, it is equivalent to about a 30 on 35mm. Dick Arentz and others use the 355mm on their 12x20's . The coverage and sharpness of these bad boys are awesome. They are some of my most used lenses. Stop them down and the coverage just gets huge.

clay

[Oren Grad]

G-Clarons have two great advantages - they're very small and light- weight for their respective focal lengths, and they offer extremely large coverage when stopped down to f/45. For example, the 270 will just cover 11x14 or 7x17, while the 355 is usable on 12x20.

Based on my experience of owning and working with the 270 and 355 G- Clarons as well as other lens types in many focal lengths, however, my view is that they don't have the refinement of the best modern plasmat designs - say, the Apo-Symmars and Apo-Sironar-N and -S series - in sharpness, tonality or overall image character. This is not to dump on the G-Clarons - they do very well at their intended use as process lenses. If anything, the surprise is that they do perform decently in general pictorial use.

So it depends what's important to you. They're certainly usable; whether the image quality tradeoff matters to you depends on whether a) you see and care about subtleties of image character, b) you have special requirements for compactness or extreme coverage that can't be met by the big plasmats, or c) you need a specific focal length that's hard to get any other way (e.g., 270 for 8x10, anything for 7x17/11x14 or larger).

Good luck...

[Asher Galloway]

I have a 150mm,that I use for 4x5 and 5x7 with great results.I especially appreciate the smallsize and weight.

[Michael Kadillak]

Jonathan:

The previous poster has it right. The G Clarons are fine lenses, but the reality of the situation is that when you take the 20x magnifier to them and throw them on the light box, there can be no questions that they are a step below modern coated offerings. If size and cost are important to you, try the Nikon 200 or 300mm M series or the Fuji 450 C. If I were looking for the one lens that performed consistently with the 4x5 format, it opt for the Nikon 135mm W. Small, inexpensive and as sharp as I have ever seen in large format. Good Luck

[Julio Fernandez]

Oren: I think you have it just right, all the way. The Clarons can not possibly offer the wide dynamic range (tonality) of the modern plastmats with MTFs that look as the Claron's do.

[Adrian_3158]

In selecting a set of 3 lenses for trekking, I prefer compactness and a common inexpensive relatively small diameter filter size. The Claron suits me fine.