Barrel Lens comparsion tests

[Frank Bagbey]

The wonderful and well researched article in the current issue of View Camera regarding barrel lenses makes me inclined to try comparisons between a Rodenstock 300mm process camera lens I have that came from a 30X40 process camera and my Schneider 300mm F5.6 APO lens. In fact, maybe I will compare both of them to my 300mm NikkorM lens to see how they all stack up regarding sharpness.

What I am concerned about most is a process camera lens is designed to take a flat dimension subject and make a flat dimension image. The other lenses are designed to take three dimensional subjects and make flat dimension images. Is my thinking off here? Has anyone already made these comparisons? Is so, what are the results regarding 5X7 and 8X10 negatives?

[ronald lamarsh]

I don't think one could see a lot of difference i.e. folks have been using Artar's for many years now and rave about their performance. I have an APO wollensak copy of the artar which is actually labeled as a process lens.....it makes stunning images. G-clarons are also held by most in very high regard and they are process type lenses.

[Joerg Krusche]

Frank,

firstly forget about that "flat field/flat dimension" story about process lenses, they are optical lenses, they may be optimized for the 1:5 to 5:1 ratio. Above 300mm lenses have increasing picture angle , Apo Ronar ca. 45°, M-Nikkor ca. 53° and the Apo Symmar, if that is your candidate, with ca. 70° degrees. These data are specs and may be conservative.

The Apo Symmar (6-element plasmat) will have no problem with 8x10, Tessar designs (M-Nikkor) and process lenses (Apo Ronar as a dialyte/Artar design) require stopping down to f=22 for best performance across the image field, I would not recommend the 300mm Apo Ronar for 8x10, a great lens though for 4x5 !

Process lenses (f=9 to f=16) though may offer a very attractive weight/performance/price package, and when it comes to longer focal lengths i.e. 450mm and above, are the only reasonable choice.

Just my 2 cents !

Joerg

[Bob Fowler]

I have a 12" APO Artar which I use on 5X7 and a 305mm APO Nikkor which I use for 4X5. Both are very good lenses, but the Nikkor has the edge only because of it's coating.

[brook]

After realizing how good my barrels preformed, and how rarly I used or really needed a modern shutter, I have sold and/or traded all of my modern shuttered lenses and replaced with equivalent FL barrel lenses. I have been really happy with a 17" copying ektar and my 300mm and 210 JML lenses , not to mention the Apo Nikkors, 610 and 760. I built a packard shutter box w/ a pc synch attachment and picked up a few ND filters, I never feel disadvantaged by the lack of modern copals.
I think the best thing I have found is being able to pick up ancient Rapid Rectiliners and other old barrels on the cheap, and really change the look. The newer glass is starting to get a bit boaring and predictable. I may be wrecked for life......
Brook

[Steve Clark]

I`m with Joerg, a lens does not know if it is looking at a flat or three dimensional object. I just did some tests today with a 270 Apo- Gerogon S, supposedly not usable for general purpose photography, and guess what folks, the results were tremendous on a 5x7 neg. Can`t say how it will work out on the format it was designed for.

[Joerg Krusche]

Steve,

I fully agree with you about the Apo-Gerogon S, with its specified picture angle of 75 degrees and its performance, this lens is a true performer.

Joerg

[Jeff_5534]

" Apo-Gerogon S, with its specified picture angle of 75 degrees and its performance"

where can I find specs on an apo-gerogon f9 150mm?

thanks

Jeff