Rodenstock Geronar or Ronar 300MM f9

[J V McLure]

Both the Rodenstock Geronar or APO Ronar 300MM f9 appear to be about the same size. Is one better than the other for landscape photography? It is obvious that these lenses are far smaller and lighter then most LF lenses in the 300MM range. How would the image quality produced by one of these smaller lenses stack up with that produced by one of the larger lenses in that focal length range?

J V McLure

[Robert Oliver]

Also consider the nikkor M 300mm f9. Small, light and sharp as they come (imho). I think my 300mm f9 is slightly sharper than my 300mm f5.6. This is probably because of the weight of the lens and shutter on a field camera and the instability in the front standard that it causes.

[Jan Pedersen]

Two very different lenses, i have the 300mm Apo Ronar (MC version) and it is one of my favorite lenses for 4x5 5x7 and 8x10 tack sharp but very pleasing at the same time. The Ronar is a dialyte by the way. You will see many of the Ronars uncoated and in barels, i have no experience with those but in theory contrast should be lower and there is also a chance that you will incur some lens flare due to the design of the lens. A good lens hood is a must with the Ronar and other dialytes.
Don't have a Geronar but as as far i know it is a triplet and will be softer than the Ronar, still a good lens just softer.
If you like contrasty landscape and colors the Ronar is a great lens.

[Eric Rose]

I use a 300mm Geronar and it's both contrasty and sharp.

[David Karp]

I have the 210mm version of the Geronar (actually a Caltar II-E - same thing). If the 300 is like the 210, and I believe it would be, once you stop down to f/16 or f/22, it would be as sharp as you would need. The Nikkor M or APO-Ronar or Fujinon C would probably be a better bet if you wanted a small, lightweight 300 that you might use wide open from time to time.