Thanks Oren. That’s the same version as the one I have.
My earliest literature dates from 1967 and lists the 150 as f/9, while the lens in question dates (from its serial number) to around 1971. This doesn’t lend much support to the “earlier 150s could only get to f/11” theory, I’m afraid.
No knowledge, but I do observe that the barrel is marked at f9 rather than f11.
In post #3 above Mr. Grad addressed the f/11 WA G-Clarons.
Early f/9 G-Clarons were dagor types. They were replaced in the 1960s by f/9 plasmat types. archive.org is currently off-line for maintenance. When it comes back, go to http://web.archive.org/web/201009220...kreuznach.com/
archiv/archiv.htm to see the catalogs.
Steve, I think I found the lens you referred to. Auction #185363718449. The s/n makes it a dagor type. My copy of the dagor type catalog shows only f/9ers. I have no idea why it is engraved 1:11. The cells are in a modern G-Claron barrel. AFAIK, the change from dagor type to plasmat type was accompanied by a change in barrel design.
The PDF says the WA f11 lenses are a 4/4 design, not 6/4 like the f9 versions. Unfortunately, it doesn't say anything about the angle of coverage -- which I would guess is less. The WA lenses may or may not have been an earlier line of lenses, but it was definitely a different version -- and explains the slower f-stop. Typically, faster lenses, or lenses with more coverage, have more elements.
Last edited by xkaes; 30-Mar-2022 at 11:58.
I've merged three threads on the same topic. A tough one - we still don't have an answer!
Look here: http://schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv..._claron_wa.pdf
Coverage is given at the bottom of p. 2
Lasse Thomasson | Instagram
Here's a more complete spec sheet. Perhaps this is what Dan is referring to, but it does not have the 150mm.
https://jbhphoto.com/store/wp-conten...claronwa01.pdf
There never was a 150/11 WA G-Claron. 210, 240 and 270. That's all.
For the WA G-Claron brochure I referred to in post #27 above, go to http://web.archive.org/web/201009220...hiv/archiv.htm and look around. FWIW, I got a 404 when I clicked on the link in post #27 above. Sorry 'bout that.
Bookmarks