Schneider 240mm f9 G-Claron lens question

[John Wiegerink]

I just ran a few sheets of HP5+ in my Chamonix 4X5 with the 240mm G-Claron tight in the shutter and then spaced to the Schneider specs of 53.5mm. I'm going to develop them tonight and see what they look like. I only had my 4X5 here with me and no 8X10, but it should give me an idea if it's a spacing problem or not.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It has at least 3.

When Schneider sold off surplus stock Xenar, G-Claron, Centre filters. etc, in the early 2000s, they stated that their Copal mounted G-Claron lenses were optimised for use to Infinity. Essentially that meant different spacing to the copy camera barrel mount lenses.

In an article on post WWII CZ LF lenses, one Apo Tessar has a surprisingly large maybe 1cm spacer to convert between Macro/Copy use and normal Infinity.

The 90mm f6.8 Angulon has a bad reputation, well those under the 5 million serial number. The late Dean Jones of Razzle Dog Polaroid conversion fame realised that the issue was actually the batch of Compur #0 shutters used. The tube size was often out of tolerance, too long, he re-machined to the correct tolerance and suddenly a poor lens became sharp.

So yes, spacing can be critical.

Ian

How interesting. My 90/6.8 Angulon is very nice, although the coverage is a bit tight. Mine has a 8,882,*** serial number and is mounted in a Synchro Compur-P shutter. I am sure it is the original shutter. Carol Flutot overhauled the shutter.

And my 240/9 G-Claron is very high resolution. It is mounted in a Copal No. 1 shutter. I bought it via Mr. Kumar, who often advertises here.

 

[GregY]

I just ran a few sheets of HP5+ in my Chamonix 4X5 with the 240mm G-Claron tight in the shutter and then spaced to the Schneider specs of 53.5mm. I'm going to develop them tonight and see what they look like. I only had my 4X5 here with me and no 8X10, but it should give me an idea if it's a spacing problem or not.

That sounds like a good test John
I don't know if this relates...but I always wanted a 210 Claron Dagor...and found one for sale....cells only for $100.
I took the 240 cells out of their Copal 1 home and replaced them with the 210. The 210 works like a charm.....so it could well be the press shutter specs/tolerances. The standard Copal 1 suits them to a T.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That sounds like a good test John
I don't know if this relates...but I always wanted a 210 Claron Dagor...and found one for sale....cells only for $100.
I took the 240 cells out of their Copal 1 home and replaced them with the 210. The 210 works like a charm.....so it could well be the press shutter specs/tolerances. The standard Copal 1 suits them to a T.

They're hanging right now and I'll check and scan them in the morning. I hope the spacing length solves the problem. If not I'll keep digging until I find it.

 

[Ian Grant]

How interesting. My 90/6.8 Angulon is very nice, although the coverage is a bit tight. Mine has a 8,882,*** serial number and is mounted in a Synchro Compur-P shutter. I am sure it is the original shutter. Carol Flutot overhauled the shutter.

And my 240/9 G-Claron is very high resolution. It is mounted in a Copal No. 1 shutter. I bought it via Mr. Kumar, who often advertises here.

I bought a low SN 90mm Angulon in the late 1980s which was soft, I tried another which was similar. However, I eventually s found a sharp one, these were all in Synchro-Compur shutters with no pre-view lever from memory the SN was in the 7 million, I sold it with a camera 18 months ago.

My current 90mm f6.8 Angulon is in the newer Synchro Compur, it's probably one of the las with a SN 11,38**** so around early1970.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, I just scanned my results. It does show slightly better resolution racked out to 53.5mm, but you have to go well beyond 100% to even notice it. By the time you get to that enlargement, grain will eat you alive. I did notice something I do think was the cause of the problem. Before I did the test shots, I decided to try to clean a small smudge that looked like it was on the underside of the front element. After I removed the retaining ring/bezel, I notice that the front element was not setting flush with the recess it fits in. Somewhere along the line it must have been disassembled and when it was reassembled the person never got it back in straight. All said and done, it seems plenty sharp enough now, I'll try it later on my 8X10 when I get back home.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I bought a low SN 90mm Angulon in the late 1980s which was soft, I tried another which was similar. However, I eventually s found a sharp one, these were all in Synchro-Compur shutters with no pre-view lever from memory the SN was in the 7 million, I sold it with a camera 18 months ago.

My current 90mm f6.8 Angulon is in the newer Synchro Compur, it's probably one of the las with a SN 11,38**** so around early1970.

Ian

I have a real early one uncoated that's pretty good and a coated one from about 1953 that keeps up pretty well with my 90nn f8 SA at f22. My problem is that I can't focus to infinity with the 90mm f6.8 1952 in newer shutter with a flat lens board on my Chamonix 4X5 N2. With the old uncoated one in an aged Dervel shutter, I can. I just set it aside and use my 100mm WF Ektar on the Chamonix camera instead of the slightly more compact 90mm f6.8.

 

[MsLing]

John, I had a 240 G Claron that i used on my 5x7 & it was flawless....& sharp. I was never disappointed in the results. Good luck sorting out the mounting/ shutter issue

Cool, like a piece of watercolor. How you do this?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Cool, like a piece of watercolor. How you do this?

It's pretty much been solved, but I still have to try it on my 8X10 camera. So far I'm now happy with it, but the f9 makes focusing in dimmer light a little difficult at times. Hopefully I'll be able to take pictures like the one GregY posted.

 

[GregY]

Cool, like a piece of watercolor. How you do this?

An Iphone photo of a print before placing the window overmat on it

 

[GG12]

Using the GClaron 240mm - on a 2x3 view camera, and even more oddly, with a digital back... you get a cheap tele, and work always in the sweet spot of the lens. Did some test shots - here is the full frame (compressed so doesn't look sharp), and the 100% crop - which is sharp, can see the spider web....

 

[GregY]

Using the GClaron 240mm - on a 2x3 view camera, and even more oddly, with a digital back... you get a cheap tele, and work always in the sweet spot of the lens. Did some test shots - here is the full frame (compressed so doesn't look sharp), and the 100% crop - which is sharp, can see the spider web....

JW, I've used the 150/210/240/305 G Clarons and never failed to get really fine results.

 

[John Wiegerink]

JW, I've used the 150/210/240/305 G Clarons and never failed to get really fine results.

Greg,
After seeing some of your work, I trust what you say. If I can't get good results, it's either a faulty lens or me. Looking at GG12's photo above and seeing those spider webs on the wrought iron fence convinces me of exactly what the 240mm G-Claron is capable of. I might even look at a 150mm G-Claron for my 4X5 outfit?

 

[varg]

A problem can be that the Copal Press shutters don´t have the nescessary recesse obove the threads.
The most post war lenses have a centric diameter between thread and lens front. For this the shutters needs this centric diameter as well to sunk up the lens cell deep enough.
When you shutter has only a complete thread and no turned recess the lens cells are not in position. The distance between both cell are around 3mm too long.
Another point can be that the shutter threads are out of the centicity. Shutters are made of two parts and this parts must have a high precision of centricity.

I have all G-Claron focus length from Schneider, all of it are excellent, the Dagor types and the later Plasmat types as well.
I never hear anything about a bad G-Claron. Only when someone used wrong rear lens.