Printable View
Subject: apo ronar 240/9
i've just receive (second hand) an apo ronar f9 240 on a black copal 1 the serial number is 10 259 445, i thought it was multicoated in fact is not multicoated, and is from 1979, but it looks brand new. So here is my question : this lens is in mint condition, it's an apo lens, and i will use it with a lens shade (the price is about 340$) is there a really difference in image quality (color slides) with the multicoated version ? shall i buy it ? thanks
I am not very knowledgeable about this, but I thought apo lenses needed to be coated, since it is the coating that allows them to focus all three different color in the same film plane, but then I might be wrong! I hope someone with more knowledge answers this, since I am curious about it too....cheers
"since it is the coating that allows them to focus all three different color in the same film plane,"Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense, and just can't go unchallenged.The ability of a lens to focus different colours to a common focus has absolutely nothing to do with anti-reflection coatings.Multicoating improves the light transmission efficiency at an air/glass surface, and can help to improved the image contrast of a lens; full stop. In an Apo Ronar with only 6 air/glass surfaces, the difference between single coating and multicoating is minimal. It probably has less effect on image contrast than a layer of dust on the inside of the camera bellows.
under certain circumstances, there might be a difference in image quality, but I wouldn't mind that. I'm still using singlecoated lenses side by side to multicoated and I only sometimes see the difference - because I know there should be one. Avoid shootin into a lightsource like the sun or a lamp and enjoy the real qaulity of the apo-ronar!
As Pete stated, coatings (or the lack thereof) have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a lens is apochromatically corrected. After all, the APO Artars (and all other early APO lenses) were completely uncoated for the first 50 or so years they were made - and then for the next 35 years, single coated. BTW, for anyone who doesn't already know, the APO Ronar is almost identical in design to the APO Artar (4 element- 4 group dialyte - or Celor - type).
Just one correction to Pete's post. The APO Ronar, like the APO Artar, has eight air:glass interfaces (it's a four element totally air spaced design with two air:glass interfaces per element). So, a single coated sample WILL have noticeably better contrast and flair resistance than an uncoated one. A multicoated one will have only marginally better flair resistance than a single coated one (and then generally only in certain ligting situtations). Of course, given like construction, the multicoated one will always be equal (mostly) or better (occasionally) than the single coated one - never worse (in terms of contrast and flair resistance).
Kerry
Pete if you read the message I clearly stated I was not knowledgeable in this matter, so as far as you challanging my "utter nonsense", you are not since I did not know. Maybe you should chill out a little, I am sure there are many things I know you don't. But then again your arrogance probably prevents you from accepting this.
Yes, The Apo-ronar does have eight surfaces. I was too apoplectic at Jorges comment about the coatings to be thinking straight. ;^)
i've got it ! sharp beyond sharp, and a strong 3d effect, nice color rendition, a real bargain ! The image circle is limited, but the image is sharp till the edge ! Is anyone compare it (slides, side by side, same subject) with the fuji A 240/9, or Sironar S 5,6/240, Apo Symmar 5,6/240?