PDA

View Full Version : 47" Rodenstock APO-Ronar-CL



alec4444
27-Apr-2008, 11:39
In a fit of insanity I purchased this lens for more than I probably should have. Figured I've got 50" of bellows on my 11x14, and it would be a darn shame not to make the most of them.

Has anyone shot something of this focal length on 11x14? Is it a mild telephoto, or more than that? I've wanted to shoot some New York skyline photos from my roof deck, and I'm hoping this might do.

First things first, though - I've got to figure out how to get it on a 5 1/4" lensboard!!!!

Thanks!
--A

Michael Darnton
27-Apr-2008, 12:26
That would be about the equivalent of 110mm on 35mm, which does make it a short/mid tele.

jb7
27-Apr-2008, 13:03
I don't do the big stuff,
but that looks like fun-
I wonder if you have enough extension though-
infinity is a long way away on that thing,
and the foreground might need to be a long way away too-

perhaps a little top-hat might not be a bad idea,
as you're making the board anyway?

joseph

alec4444
27-Apr-2008, 14:16
My camera has 50" of bellows, so I should be fine. "Similar to 110mm lens on 35mm camera" would be perfect. Only issue remaining is lens board mounting & weight....

We'll see - it may just end up being ridiculous.....keep an eye out in the for sale section! :D

--A

Pete Roody
27-Apr-2008, 14:18
How big is the sucka? It might be better to make an aluminum lensboard because you will not have much left when you cut the hole.

Mark Sampson
28-Apr-2008, 05:56
Don't forget the second tripod- camera shake will be a big issue. See the work of Reinhart Wolf; His book "New York" is a must-have for the kind of thing you're contemplating. to avoid some suspense, I'll tell you that he used an 8x10 Sinar and lenses up to 1000mm. I've always admired that work, and if I lived in the city I'd be trying to do what you have in mind. Good luck!

Pete Roody
28-Apr-2008, 06:26
Don't forget the second tripod- camera shake will be a big issue. See the work of Reinhart Wolf; His book "New York" is a must-have for the kind of thing you're contemplating. to avoid some suspense, I'll tell you that he used an 8x10 Sinar and lenses up to 1000mm. I've always admired that work, and if I lived in the city I'd be trying to do what you have in mind. Good luck!

With a Sinar, you can use a standard on the front and back of the lens. I believe that is what Wolf did.

Alec, a monopod could be used as extra support under the front standard. If your Wisner can focus with the rear standard, then you can set the camera up fully extended and still focus without having to remove the front support.

You could do a series on the Empire State building alone, from different vantage points, using the long lens to 'pull' it in. I bet it would also be cool in Maine. ;)

alec4444
28-Apr-2008, 15:31
Hey Pete,

Dunno what the weight is yet - should have the beast in-hand next week. My guess is that it's not an "ideal backpacking lens". :D Might need my Yak back from Erik James....

Eddie was already kind enough to donate a light stand to help reduce the load on the front standard.

I'm sure it would be PERFECT in Maine - thanks for rubbing that in!!! :)

--A

alec4444
12-May-2008, 20:24
Got the lens today - really a beast. Guessing it's at least eight to ten pounds. I have an email out to Richard Ritter to see if a custom metal lens board could be produced with threads to match the flange. Thus a "built-in" flange that, per Pete's suggestion, might have less stress than a wood board with narrow edges.

Have to say though, that short of that I may need to check into a white, comfy, padded room for a few weeks....


That would be about the equivalent of 110mm on 35mm, which does make it a short/mid tele.

Yeah, beginning to wonder if pulling out my 135mm lens for my 35mm camera might not have been the better idea!!!!

--A

Jim Fitzgerald
12-May-2008, 21:11
Alec, you nut! I mean that in a nice way! I'm glad I don't have that much bellows on my 11x14! I'd be crazy enough to try and backpack with it! The lens and nothing else!!! Let me know how it goes. I've only got the 28" component from my TRT. I'm kind of glad I've only got 36" of bellows.


JIm

Really Big Cameras
12-May-2008, 21:26
Got the lens today - really a beast. Guessing it's at least eight to ten pounds.

Almost makes my 5 lb. 42" Red Dot Artar seem lightweight by comparison. I plan to use it on 14x17 where it's equivalent to a 300mm on 4x5.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras - and Lenses (but not as big as Alec's)

Pete Roody
13-May-2008, 06:31
Reinhart Wolf used these lenses on a Sinar system. He used a support on both the front and back of the lens. That is easier with a rail system.

Marco Annaratone
30-May-2008, 17:07
I have a humble 40in Apo Ronar CL and I keep it around for fun (and because it's just a joy to look at) but I would never use it on my Lotus 14 x 17 even though its front standard is _really_ strong. When I say "using it" I mean doing tilts and swings like with any other GF lens. Eight inches in length and eleven pounds in weight, hello?!

My 40in is the six-glass model, there is also a more compact four-glass version, I don't know, that one might work ... maybe. I am not sure there is a four-glass 47in APO Ronar CL. But hey, have you guys seen the cameras these lenses were normally used on? More than "cameras" they were darkrooms on rails :-)
Cheers!

Daniel Unkefer
30-May-2008, 21:11
This lens would be perfect on the Sinar Norma. I have always been a fan of the late Reinhart Wolf. Yes, he used the front and back standards of the Sinar Norma to support the 1000mm Apo Ronar, as well as other lenses. This lens you have is in the same category, 47"x25.6=1203mm. I would be interested, if you ever want to sell it.
Regards, Dan

Really Big Cameras
31-May-2008, 00:13
My 40in is the six-glass model, there is also a more compact four-glass version, I don't know, that one might work ... maybe. I am not sure there is a four-glass 47in APO Ronar CL. But hey, have you guys seen the cameras these lenses were normally used on? More than "cameras" they were darkrooms on rails :-)
Cheers!

Marco,

I'll have to dig through my Rodenstock literature to see if they ever made a 47" APO Ronar of 4/4 construction. I seem to recall that they did, but I want to check the literature to be sure.

I do know that Goerz made the 47" Red Dot Artar in 4/4 construction. I'm not sure, however, if they produced any late samples in the lighter weight aluminum barrels in this focal length. When I bought my 42" Red Dot Artar, I specifically sought one with an aluminum barrel to keep the weight within reason. Even then, it tops out at a few grams over 5 lbs. - which is about 4 oz. less than it's grandson, the 1100mm Fine Art XXL.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

Joerg Krusche
31-May-2008, 04:16
Kerry,

Rodenstock made the 1200mm (47 inch) in the 4/4 Artar design and as 6- and 8-element versions.

best

Joerg

Marco Annaratone
31-May-2008, 06:59
... but nobody will ever be able to convince me that the Apo-Ronar 16/1800 :eek: that showed up on Ebay last year can be used on a view camera that you can (somewhat) effortlessly move around :D

Kerry, your 42in RD Artar must be a real beauty...

Cheers!

LF_rookie_to_be
16-Dec-2011, 07:22
Anyone care to shed some light on the shortest lens that can cover a 50x50" sheet of paper without significant fall-off? German photographer Roland Wirtz apparently uses a 1800mm Apo-Ronar to cover 50x86" and a group of Italian (and Swiss?) photographers working under the name "Cube stories" use an 890mm Apo-Nikkor for a 42x42" sheet. Which lens would come in between these focal lengths but still be relatively affordable?

Bob Salomon
16-Dec-2011, 08:11
Anyone care to shed some light on the shortest lens that can cover a 50x50" sheet of paper without significant fall-off? German photographer Roland Wirtz apparently uses a 1800mm Apo-Ronar to cover 50x86" and a group of Italian (and Swiss?) photographers working under the name "Cube stories" use an 890mm Apo-Nikkor for a 42x42" sheet. Which lens would come in between these focal lengths but still be relatively affordable?

The 1000mm Apo Ronar at 1:1 covers a 40x40" paper, the 1070 Apo Ronar covered 40 x 45", the 1200mm covered 40x50" and the 1800 covered 60x80". For the 1000 and the 1200 both speed versions covered the same format.
At infinity, of course, the coverages are much smaller.

dasBlute
16-Dec-2011, 10:07
jeess, now that's a setup:

http://www.dearchitect.nl/binaries/content/gallery/architect/blogs/11/17/Architectuurfotografie+over+rozen/image020.jpg

[from google translate]
Photographer Reinhart Wolf to work in Spain Polaroid in hand. On Sinar 8 * 10 diafilm, 800 mm lens, bellows stretching: feet. Photo: from the book Castilos in Spain. The Rodenstock lens weighs approximately 7 pounds and was made ​​to order in the factory. The tote is in architectuurfotografie. Reinhart made ​​tele's stunning 8 * 10 inch slide film from New York.

johnielvis
17-Dec-2011, 09:45
I've got a 1100 and I've never shot it outside (yet)...use it inside on a studio camera 11x14 and even that big old deardorff gets pretty wavy and bouncy all cranked out to the max---strobe is what I use so the "shutter speed" takes some of the bounce away.

i'm building a very rigid long camera to use it outside or to use it out of the house, since the studio camera takes a day to move---I believe a large enough beam mounted on ONE saltzman will provide the stiffness---as long as it's balanced

I plan to use a polaroid MP4 column---very light and very rigid---mounted to the saltzman plate for the main camera support---

the main thing you need is something to take the BEAM forces---and to be able to be rigid so it don't sway on it's own---very stiff so the resonant frequencies don't make it bounce like a pendulum or sway back and forth.

2 tripods will work too--in this case you use the GROUND as your beam support---but that's a royal pain to set up and if you need to move slightly....you can knock it over...lots of screwing around

I think also maybe putting the camera in a van would work...rigidly mounted on like a sturdy table...thehn you move the car for positioning...that's another idea I'll use too---you can drive with it all set up and open the back..pop the pic and close up quick...even at a stop light heh?

Joerg Krusche
18-Dec-2011, 04:09
Hi,

I think much of what you consider is overkill .. a plain Sinar Norma ..thus a precise and lightweight camera.. a rear standard, an intermediate standard and a front standard ..plus Sinar/Copal shutter.. all that from 4x5 thru 8x10 ..all that relatively compact .. important are two tripods .. need not be ultra-heavy .. just not flimsy .. and you are ready to go .. give it a try .. this assumes that you are not using the longer 6/8-element long Apo Ronar's .. those need to be used in a different way.. it's easy,

joerg