APO RONAR Threads don't fit Copal #3

[Robert Oliver]

I bought a bargain 360mm APO Ronar thinking it would be a direct fit into my copal #3.

The diameter of the front and back threads are exact, but they have a much finer thread than the Copal # 3. They don't seem to want to mate.

what gives.

I guess this is payback for the $25 universal iris mount I just received.

The lens is a Rodenstock Klimsch APO RONAR 360mm f9. ser #2599938

robert

[neil poulsen]

Call S. K. Grimes and see what they say. Their website is www.skgrimes.com

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Klimsch is a repro-equipment maker so that lens was never made to go into a shutter.

[Dan Fromm]

But Jason, Rodenstock made the lens under contract to Klimsch and engraved Klimsch's name on, IIRC, the trim ring. There's no reason why Rodenstock should have done anything else differently from normal.

That said, not all Apo Ronars conform to the mechanical specs published on, e.g., http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/apo-ronar/p21.htm . For example, I have two (2) 150/9 Apo Ronars whose cells' won't go into any shutter I've ever seen. Certainly not standard #00 or #0. Too small for #0, too big for #00. Serial numbers are 4 805 870 and 10 364 641, so I don't think its a question of new vs. old.

[Mick Fagan]

Dan, where I once worked we had about 25 Klimsch gallery cameras. Some of them came with Schneider and some came with Rodenstock lenses.

There was a difference between the two manufacturers lenses. I know that our camera mechanic/technician who was a Dutchman who had worked for Klimsch in Europe, before living in Australia, mentioned more than once, that Rodenstock lenses were a Klimsch OEM only, whereas Schneider lenses were a standard off the shelf body, so to speak.

I'm talking the late sixties through to the eighties here.

When we split one of our trade houses up into two concerns on different sides of town, we ensured that one lot of cameras were Rodenstock and the other factory was equipped with Schneider gallery cameras. That way if a camera went down, we could if required, switch a needed lens to another body and keep on working.

Mick.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

...But Jason, Rodenstock made the lens under contract to Klimsch and engraved Klimsch's name on, IIRC, the trim ring. There's no reason why Rodenstock should have done anything else differently from normal...

This may well be true Dan, but the five or six Klimsch barrels I have seen are quite different from the non-branded Apo-Ronars. I have no idea why this is the case.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

If the serial number is correct, that is a very old APO Ronar from the early 1950s. Which means it pre-dates the introduction of the Copal No. 3 shutter by over a decade. So, no surprise it's not a direct fit in a shutter that didn't exist when the lens was made.

Kerry

[Dan Fromm]

Wasn't there a Compur #3, Kerry?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Wasn't there a Compur #3, Kerry?

No until much later. I think the Compur No. 3 may even post-date the Copal No. 3, but I'd have to look it up to be sure.

Back in the early 1950s when this particular lens was made, the same company (Deckel) manufactured both Compur and Compound shutters. The Compurs were available in 00, 0, 1, and 2 sizes. They supplied Compound shutters for lenses requiring a larger shutter up until at least the late 1950s, perhaps even early 1960s.

I'm not sure of the exact date, but I believe the Copal No. 3 shutter debuted in the 1963 - 1965 time frame. I also believe it was based on an earlier Japanese shutter the Shanel No. 5A (not to be confused with Chanel No. 5 perfume). I don't believe the modern Compur No. 3 shutter debuted until the mid to late 1960s.

14"/360mm APO Ronars from the 1950s and early 1960s came in either barrel mount or fitted at the factory into Compur No. 2 shutters - although the particular lens in question sounds like the threads are far too big to be a direct fit in a Compur No. 2. Unless it happens to fit one of the Compound shutters from the time period when it was manufactured, I doubt if it's a direct fit into any standard shutter.

Kerry

[Dan Fromm]

Kerry, thanks for the reply. I hope that Ole Tjugen chimes in about Compounds. Again, I'd swear even though I could well be mistaken that there have been huge Compounds since before WW I.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Kerry, thanks for the reply. I hope that Ole Tjugen chimes in about Compounds. Again, I'd swear even though I could well be mistaken that there have been huge Compounds since before WW I.

The Compound shutter was introduced in 1903. So yes, definitely before WWI.

The rim set Compur debuted in 1928, but I believe only in the smaller sizes (there may have been some larger dial set Compurs, but I'm completely lacking in the details on the various sizes, when they were introduced/discontinued, etc.).

I believe sometime in the 1940s, perhaps after WWII, they discontinued the smaller Compound shutters and went with a mix of Compur shutters in the small sizes and Compund shutters in the larger sizes. This would have been their product mix at the time the lens in question was manufactured and would have remained that way until the Compound shutters were discontinued and the Compur No. 3 introduced.

Perhaps Ole will chime in as he's more of an expert on the Compur/Compound shutters than I am.

Kerry

[Arne Croell]

As an additional remark, it is my experience that the majority of lenses Rodenstock made for the reprographic market came with mounts not compatible with shutters (new or old), so the same lenses (optically) they sold for camera use came in different cell mounts. Schneiders process lens cell mounts, on the other hand, are often a direct fit in some shutter. Case in point are the Apo-Gerogon lenses vs. the similar G-Clarons, but it works for Apo-Ronars vs. Repro-Clarons as well. I am not sure if that was an economic philosophy - not competing with your own product in Rodenstock's case versus economy of manufacturing in Schneider's, or due to some other obscure reason. And it is just a general trend observation, I am sure there are counterexamples for each case.

[Daniel Grenier]

I had an old 360 Apo Ronar that fit perfectly well in a Copal 3S (the slightly smaller version of the Copal 3). Maybe yours might fit in a 3S too?

[Ole Tjugen]

I'm not entirely certain of the dates of the various incarnations of the Compurs and Compounds either.

I haven't seen a Compur smaller than #3 made after the introduction of the rim-set Compur in 0, 1 and 2, but that is no evidence that souch a beast doesn't exist.

The Compounds seem to have been made until around 1970, and replaced by various electric and electronic Compur shutters for a relatively short time.

And of course the threads of a Compund 3 are different from Copal 3 as well as the 3s...

[Richard Kelham]

I bought a bargain 360mm APO Ronar thinking it would be a direct fit into my copal #3.

The diameter of the front and back threads are exact, but they have a much finer thread than the Copal # 3. They don't seem to want to mate.

The lens is a Rodenstock Klimsch APO RONAR 360mm f9. ser #2599938



From the serial number the lens was made c1952. According to Thiele th eCompur 3 was introduced in 1955. So it wouls seem you will have to practice your "hat in front of the lens" technique, or write out a very large cheque to S K Grimes!

for Arne: my mid '70s 300mm apo-Ronar lens cells fit perfectly in a #1 shutter...



Richard