Which 240mm?

[gmed]

I shoot 4x5.
Between the Rodenstock Ronar 240mm f9 and Nikkor 240 f5.6, which would you choose if the price was comparable? I realize the 5.6 is much larger and heavier, uses copal 3 vs 1. I shoot landscape and trees. If weight isn't an issue, what would you go for and why?

Also is the Rodenstock same as the sinar?

[Bernice Loui]

What film / imager format size?

The f5.6 Nkkor has a much larger image circle than the f9 Ronar as starting point.


Bernice

[gmed]

I'm not sure if I understand your question about the imager format size? Can you please clarify? Thank you for your help.

[Bernice Loui]

Film, 35mm roll, 120 roll, 2x3 sheet, 4x5 sheet, 5x7 sheet, 8x10 sheet.....

Imager could be anything from a direct positive paper, to paper negatives to a digital image sensor used in a digital SLR, mirror less to a cryo cooled CCD used for astronomy..

The 240mm Ronar is good for up to 5x7 with nil camera movements, on 4x5 it's good. The Nikkor will cover 8x10 with good performance.
Both are good lenses, where each fits best depends on imaging needs.


Bernice




I'm not sure if I understand your question about the imager format size? Can you please clarify? Thank you for your help.

[gmed]

As I mentioned above, I shoot 4x5, that's why I was confused.

[gmed]

So if I'm gonna need more movements, I should go with the 5.6?

[Bernice Loui]

The image circle for the 240mm Nikkor, just over 330mm, way more than needed on 4x5. There is also the weight of this lens.

The 240 Ronar is small, lightweight with an image circle of a tad more than 210mm, good enough for 4x5 with significant camera movements in most cases and 'just' covers 5x7 nil or zero camera movements.

Would it be possible to try out both, then decide? Many times, trying out a specific lens under your specific conditions is the only way to really know if a specific lens is going to work well for you.

There are significant differences in image rendering between these two lenses beyond image circle. My personal bias would be towards the Ronar, as modern f5.6 plasmas in general don't work for me, do know the images they (Plasmats in general) render on film may be ideal for your needs. There is no real "right -vs- wrong" both are fine optics, the choice is personal and more subjective than just data or what others may say about them.


Bernice



So if I'm gonna need more movements, I should go with the 5.6?

[gmed]

Thank you for the info. I think the weight may be an important factor, also I will never need the wide aperture. I will never upgrade to 8x10 or 5x7,so .... Unfortunately I buy them on eBay, I won't have a way to test them out first.

Again, thank you for the info.

[Bernice Loui]

Maybe wiser to consider a purchase with option to return from a reputable dealer even if the cost is higher. The ability to try out a specific lens and return it if that specific lens does not work out for you is lower cost and wiser in the long run.

Do know lens do vary from lens to lens. One 240mm Ronar could be a stellar example, while another could be a complete problem optically. Then we have the shutter, Copal shutters tend to be very reliable and durable, yet they remain mechanical devices that can and do develop problems. When purchasing from ebay, there is no real way to test for this without have the physical lens in hand to test. There are ebay seller who are reputable dealers, offer returns and etc.. Consider this a valuable service and is worth the added cost.

Don't allow lenses with small, fine scratches discourage you from purchase and testing. Many times, these "flaws" make no significant difference in the on film image performance, while a lens that has "perfect glass" that has be whacked out of alignment has poor optical film image performance.

A lens that meets your needs is great and one that does not tends to cause much grief and frustration.

Cost or cosmetic condition alone should not be the decisive factor.

There is a buy/sell listing on LFF, consider that as a resource too.


Bernice



Thank you for the info. I think the weight may be an important factor, also I will never need the wide aperture. I will never upgrade to 8x10 or 5x7,so .... Unfortunately I buy them on eBay, I won't have a way to test them out first.

Again, thank you for the info.

[gmed]

You've been a lot of help. Thank so much. Come to think of it, there is a local store that I can go to and see. So far I've bought two lenses, and I've been lucky. You are right. Wouldn't want to get stuck with snaffle ns or one that doesn't fit my needs.

[Lachlan 717]

Have you considered the 240mm G Clarons? I sold my Fujinon A 240mm and kept the Claron as it was just as sharp and contrasty at less than half the cost.

It won't be bothered by the 4x5 IC requirements, either.

Lightweight as well!

[Doremus Scudder]

Have you considered the 240mm G Clarons? I sold my Fujinon A 240mm and kept the Claron as it was just as sharp and contrasty at less than half the cost.

It won't be bothered by the 4x5 IC requirements, either.

Lightweight as well!

Since the 240 Fujinon A has been mentioned, I'll say that I love mine! 336mm image circle, 52mm filters, small enough to fold up on my Wista DX. The only (very slight) downside is the f/9 maximum aperture, which makes for a slightly dimmer ground-glass image. I never have found that a problem with this lens and a decent dark cloth. They are available reasonably on the used market.

Best,

Doremus

[jp]

I would prefer something with the copal3 as it will have a smoother/rounder aperture than a copal1 if you're into thin depth of field stuff. If you're into everything being in focus or nearly so, it won't matter.

[Ken Lee]

How many blades does a Copal 3 diaphragm have ?

(My Copal 0 shutters have 5 blades and my Copal 1 shutters have 7 blades.)

[Drew Wiley]

Only the older 3s shutters are going to give you a round aperture, not the more modern Copal 3. And as far as a comparison between a 250G Claron and Fuji 240A,
they are very similar in image circle and sharpness, both at infinity and close up. I use both of them. The multicoated A does give a bit more contrast than the single
coated G-Claron, in fact, even when well shaded, but sometimes a bit too much. So I prefer to own both, so I can fine-tune the contrast relative to the specific
film involved. But it's a minor nuance; and for most things, these lenses are functionally interchangeable. Neither of these lenses have particularly desirable out of
focus blur (bokeh).

[evan clarke]

There's an almost perfect 240 G Claron for sale right here on the forum. Clarons are excellent.

[Huub]

Filter size is something that could be taken into consideration too. The apo-ronar uses 49mm, which are readily available at good prices. The Nikon seems to take 95mm filters, which are a bit more costly with prices around $100 a piece. The Nikon is more like a moderate wide angle for 8x10 and seems overkill for me on a 4x5.

[uphereinmytree]

I'd like to mention a 240mm xenar f4.5. Mine is coated, compound 4 shutter with very round aperture, and it illuminates 8x10 although it will need to be stopped down for corner sharpness and is maybe best only up to 5x7.

[angusparker]

Another vote for Fujinon A 240mm f9 really an excellent lens, modern coatings, light, small filter size and if you do move up to 8x10 you will still be able to use it. Anything in a Copal 3 for 4x5 is overkill IMHO. The extra weight of a f5.6 lens and Copal 3 shutter can make some rigs front heavy, tippy, and wobbly.

If you move up to 300mm which is pretty close in focal lengthto 240mm consider the Nikkor M or Fujinon C as options.

[enneffe]

I really like the Schneider APO 240...you might give that a try if you haven't already. Covers 8x10 well with minimal movements.