210 Symmar versus 210 G-Claron

[IanG]

You've got it completely wrong, Ian, and everyone who uses these lenses knows it.
The older specs on G-Clarons were relative to them at either 1:1 or if otherwise, per
an image circle at process standards, i.e, way stricter than what was expected of a
typcial shooting lens. While they are not inifinity corrected wide open (but neither are
most lenses), they reach a high level of performance well before diffraction becomes
the great equalizer. There were special purpose G-Clarons, and I don't know about
some of the early ones, but the later ones in shutter are absolutely superb at inifinity.
pupose lenses. My 210 Symmar S was never as good at inifinity at any f/stop as my
G-Claron. Schneider did market these lenses for tabletop, because they excel in this
kind of application, but I was outright told by a Schneider Rep that they were
superior to their general-purpose plastmats for almost all applications. You just give
up a stop of speed.

You can believe what ever sales hype you like.

However the reality is some late G Claron's were better optimised for distances but they weren't better than the contemporary Symmars except for close up work.

The bottom line is that Schneider had excess lenses in terms of unassembled elements that needed shifting, that meant a flood of brand new cheap G Clarons and Xenars in the late 90's early 2000's.

Are these lenses good or bad ? That's relative, you need to decide which you want to use.

Push comes to shove I can see a difference in quality betwen my lenses, and thats when they are used at their limits. What's being lost is that in general use it's true it's hard to see a differeance particularly when lenses are stopped down well.

Over the past 4-5 years I've been using far more lenses than usual as I built up a second LF set-up in Turkey, and what surprised me is how good my UK set up was and how poorly some of my other lenses (newer to me) perform optically.

I've actually gone for Symmar's now in Turkey a 135mm & 210mm and they are as good as my UK Rodenstok lenses, but Xenar's and G Claron's were in the melting pot and a 3 element Geronar is being trialled for it's size/weight and possible use on a pocket fit 9x12cm camera

We are pecious about our lenses, I have a 10x8 Agfa Ansco that came with a coated 12" Dagor. plus the last owners 300mm Nikon M lens board, despite having a 300mm Nikon M and there's no way it'll go on the camera . . . . . .

It is what works for you, but then you need to be aware of the limitations or alternatives.

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

Again Ian, it has absolutely nothing to do with sales hype. G-Clarons were some of the least hyped lenses ever made. I've taken and printed hundreds of LF shots with both kinds of lenses, in both color and black and white.
Besides, there is nothing either cheap about G-Clarons, and most of them were off the
market already in the time period you suggest. I have no idea where you are getting
these strange ideas.

[redu]

OK.. I can not comment for general purpose photography such as landscapes but if you are to shoot table top products here is my five cents. For such applications neither a Sironar N nor a Symmar S is a competition to lenses such as G Claron or Hexanon GR-II. They show terrible chromatic abberations. But Macro Symmar HM, Hexanon GR-II, G Claron and even a Computar Symmetrigon f6.3 would perform superbly in comparison. If you can not afford a proper Macro Symmar or Macro Sironar than your best shot would be a Hexanon GR-II (if you can solve the shutter problem) or simply a G Claron.

Actually i have all test shots done at Fmax, F11, F22 and F45 for all these lenses but haven't yet got the time to compile them down for your attention. Soon though..!

Spoiler : Konica Hexanon GR-II performs single pixel resolution on a 8400x6000 powerphase scan even at f9 (shines at f11) but it's contrast performance naturaly falls slightly behind Macro Symmar HM due to multicoating difference. There is no visible CA in these lenses for M 1:2.5 or so. OTOH if i had to buy a single lens for both table top and landscapes i would go for the Computar Symmetrigon.

[Hermes07]

Sorry for taking the thread slightly off topic but it feels silly to start a new thread for such a simple question and the claron experts all seem to be gathered here...

I've just received my first G-Claron in barrel (305mm) and seen that it has a fairly strange looking 5-bladed aperture where the blades curve outwards so the resulting opening is like a child's drawing of a star. Is there a reason for this design choice other than being a cheap/easy way to do things? All the older process lenses I have (APO Artars, APO Tessars, e.t.c.) seem to have circular apertures with huge numbers of blades whereas the newer ones (APO Germinars as another example) have very few.

[Kevin Crisp]

That is the way the aperture blades are on the typical barrel mounts on the G Clarons. I'd guess it was inexpensive and good enough for enlarging. Some of the barrel mounted C Clarons (not G Clarons) are quite the opposite; huge numbers of blades forming a perfectly round aperture. I don't know why the difference.

[redu]

If you don't need a nice bokeh it's pointless to manufacture a more expensive and complicated aperture mechanism. I believe that's the reason why they are called flat field lenses. Hexanon GR-II has a five blade aperture too.

[John NYC]

The bottom line is that Schneider had excess lenses in terms of unassembled elements that needed shifting, that meant a flood of brand new cheap G Clarons and Xenars in the late 90's early 2000's.

Ian

Please cite your source for this information.

[Drew Wiley]

Seems ridiculous. Both Xenars and G-Clarons were out of production well before then.

[aduncanson]

That is the way the aperture blades are on the typical barrel mounts on the G Clarons. I'd guess it was inexpensive and good enough for enlarging. Some of the barrel mounted C Clarons (not G Clarons) are quite the opposite; huge numbers of blades forming a perfectly round aperture. I don't know why the difference.

If you don't need a nice bokeh it's pointless to manufacture a more expensive and complicated aperture mechanism. I believe that's the reason why they are called flat field lenses. Hexanon GR-II has a five blade aperture too.

Not stated above is that when used in a process camera where flat original art is imaged onto a flat piece of film all parts of the image are in focus, so aperture shape has no consequence. I bought a 240 G-Claron for use in enlarging and was disappointed by the 5 bladed aperture until I realized this.

[Cor]

Wow..first my question was quietly falling asleep, suddenly it's harshly woken up..;-)..

Thanks for all the feedback and remarks, insightful!

Best,

Cor