Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Knoxville, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,789

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    The only 300mm lens I have except for some "project" Tessar 1c's and a Heliar is a 12" Gold Dot Dagor I use mostly on 8x10. I'm keeping it because it belonged to a friend and has a nice tonality in B&W that I like and is sharp, and you can't just go out and buy one at a reasonable price most of the time. Something you have to think about with vintage lenses as you have discovered getting your 270mm G-Claron. But I doubt I'd go looking for a 12".

    When I started out in 4x5, I started with a 150mm and a 210mm, the standard set. As time went by, I discovered that I saw "wide" and switched to a 135mm and 180mm set. Will you see a difference between 135mm and 150mm, or 180mm versus 210mm? Probably not in any given instance, but over time I think you'll decide you like one focal length better than the other. This also doesn't mean that in any given instance you wouldn't prefer a different focal length. But, a 270mm is the 8x10 equivalent of a 135mm on 4x5. The next step up for me is a 360mm, the equivalent of a 180mm on 4x5.

    The odds are you'll like the 300 mm if you like the 150mm and 210mm, it's the natural progression and what most people are happy with. But the only way you can tell is to go shoot a lot. Don't sell before you know unless you have to.

    So in short, yes you can tell a difference in small differences in focal length, but you'll have to be quite familiar with your lenses and your usual subjects.

    Cheers, Steve

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Tonopah, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6,338

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    You've got a Chevy with 300HP and a Ford with 300HP. You need to drive to the grocery store to get margarine. Which do you pick.

    The 270mm G-Claron will make a sharp image on 11X14 corner to corner at infinity.

    The 300m has rather brutal contrast that rendered it unusable in many situations in the high elevation desert country that I live in.

    For me, the 270mm G-Claron was the choice. My 300M didn't stay around long.

    Meanwhile I've wandered into Bugatti and Hispano Suiza territory lens wise, so could care less about either the Ford or the Chevy. I do have a 270 Computar f9 that is NOT for sale though.

  3. #13
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    14,416

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Interesting remark, Jim ... I too tend to use a G-Claron in the high country because I
    get a bit too much contrast otherwise, especially with color film. When the coastal fog
    is involved around here, however, I might reach for my multicoated Fuji A equivalent.
    Use of a red filter at high altitude is also an issue where one must be wary of excess
    contrast in the shadows under a deep blue sky. It's nice to have a choice between single and multi coatings in such circumstances.

  4. #14

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Galli View Post
    ... The 270mm G-Claron will make a sharp image on 11X14 corner to corner at infinity.

    ...
    Old thread but just the info I was looking for. Jim how far stopped down is that?
    --- Steve from Missouri ---

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Tonopah, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    6,338

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Don't recall any more. I know it covers 717 also but; barely, so likely not much extra on the edges of 1114 either. I think I wouldn't shoot 1114 at less than f22.

  6. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,570

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Quote Originally Posted by scheinfluger_77 View Post
    Old thread but just the info I was looking for. Jim how far stopped down is that?
    At least f/45.

  7. #17

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Galli View Post
    Don't recall any more. I know it covers 717 also but; barely, so likely not much extra on the edges of 1114 either. I think I wouldn't shoot 1114 at less than f22.
    G Clarons need to be used at no less than f22 to excise lens aberrations commensurate with the symmetrical lens design. I strive to get my lens plane optimized to allow me to employ f32 but when I do have to stop down to f45 to f64 the visual baggage with diffraction does not appear excessive. But I am primarily a contact printer.

    To be perfectly honest I have experienced a considerable amount of variable coverage with certain G Claron lenses far divergent with what others claim. I once owned a 305 G Claron that performed far less than I expected and sold it. Not sure if it was the lens mount of something else. If you do not have confidence in a lens coverage it usually does not remain in your lens kit long irrespective of what the consensus is. That being said the 355 G Claron has so much coverage it never lets me down on 8x10 through 12x20. Takes this variable completely out of play.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Collinsville, CT USA
    Posts
    1,587

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak View Post
    I once owned a 305 G Claron that performed far less than I expected and sold it. Not sure if it was the lens mount of something else.
    Have owned over the years a couple of 305mm G Clarons both barrel and shutter mounted. One was an early Dagor optic, it way out performed the later 305mm G-Clarons...

  9. #19
    loujon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Western, PA.
    Posts
    1,545

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    My copy of my 305 G Clarion covers my 8x10 work WAY better then my Nikkor 300M did. WAY better. I sold off my Nikkor M. Just goes to show.

    I also find the same massive coverage with my 355 G Clarion so there's that.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Posts
    3,436

    Re: G claron 270 f9 vs nikkor m 300f9

    Almost nine years later, I'll answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by l2oBiN View Post
    If you had both of these lenses which one would you keep and why?...
    I have both (each purchased brand new, the G-Claron a factory-shutter-mounted plasmat version from the final production stock). I'm keeping both; they serve different purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by l2oBiN View Post
    ...In terms of image taking quality (sharpness, contrast, flare resistance etc) which one is better?
    The Nikkor M is sharper, more flare resistant, has higher contrast and is 300mm. The G-Claron is 270mm. Nobody ever offered to sell me a 270mm Nikkor M that covered 8x10 with room for movements.

    Many consider a 135mm lens their standard on 4x5. In threads discussing which focal length they'd choose if they could only have one (on 4x5), a common response is "135mm" because "I like the way it renders space." Photographers using 8x10 had no other modern 270mm -- 8x10's analog to a 135mm on 4x5 -- alternatives. It was the G-Claron or find a 10-3/4-inch Dagor that hadn't been trashed. Those of us who appreciate and purchase new equipment whenever possible, as well as preferring to avoid dealing with Dagors' focus shift, went with the G-Claron for our 8x10 work.

    The Nikkor M is a fine lens for 4x5 and 5x7.

Similar Threads

  1. 270 WA Claron
    By kreig in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 29-Nov-2004, 06:02

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •