Apo-Ronar 9/300mm non-MC

[Aender Brepsom]

How good (sharpness, contrast, colour) would a non-MC Apo-Ronar 9/300mm perform on 4x5 at f/22-f45 compared to an MC version?
Thanks.

[Peter K]

With a proper lens-shade or compendium it will be hard to see any difference. But if the lens is as normaly optimized for 1:1 it has to trimmed for larger image scale to correct coma and astigmastism in the outer regions of the image circle.

[Joerg Krusche]

Aender,

just stop down to 16 or better 22 .. and the lens will be fine for 4x5.

Best

joerg

[David Swinnard]

I really like mine. I shade it when there's a possibility of direct sun on it though. I haven't made BIG prints from the negs, but I am really happy with it's sharpness at my normal "scenery" distances.

Now that I've had it for a while, I'm even thinking of maybe, possibly, some day, adding something longer (tele though) as I'm finding I'm liking the longer lengths. (Most of my earlier work was done with either a 90mm or a 120mm (on 4x5) - I'm having to remember to be aware of the "lack" of DOF with the 300mm.)

Dave

[john borrelli]

You might want to check the serial number of the lens as non MC apo-ronars have been around a long time.

[Aender Brepsom]

The serial number is 10 375 834.

[john borrelli]

According to my table, your lens was made between 1979 and 1984. That is actually recent for a single coated Rodenstock lens. Apo Ronars had something like a 50 year production run.

[Bob Salomon]

The serial number is 10 375 834.

Between 1981 and 1983.

[Aender Brepsom]

Thanks for your answers so far. I have to say that I do not own that lens (yet). My intention was to find out whether I should absolutely get an MC version or if the non-MC version is excellent too, as I have the choice between the two versions at this moment. Of course, there is a price difference too.

From your helpful answers, I understand that the non-MC versions is an excellent performer, if shaded correctly.

[john borrelli]

You have probably heard this advice before on this site, but is there any way you could purchase both, test both and keep the one you prefer? Testing two lenses of the same focal length is the best way to test a lens in my opinion, as you can compare the results without being too concerned about the effects of depth of field or having to crop one shot to match the other, etc.

One other thing of note is that, if memory serves, the latest Apo ronar series had a colored ring around the front barrel. Multi coated apo ronars without the painted ring were older, if the MC version you are looking at has this ring it would be worth considering as the resale value will be a little higher. There have been some "rumors" that the latest Apo ronars were changed to perform slightly better at infinity but I am not sure if this has ever been definitively verified.

Lastly, I think a lens should fit your style of photography. I actually bought an older single coated 240mm apo ronar. I returned it because the lens didn't quite seem contrasty enough at greater distances. A black and white shot of some distant birch trees was the subject. Now, some black and white photographers might prefer that look, I didn't. However one shot I did like was a close up picture (subject about 3 feet away from camera) of a vase of flowers, the brightly painted red vase looked great on the Velvia tranny. In fact, it had a unique creamy/sharp quality to it that was beautiful to my eyes.

Hope this info is helpful, best of luck with your decision.

[Gene McCluney]

I'm sure this has been said before, but you will find the most difference between coated and uncoated lenses. The difference between late model single-coated lenses and multi-coated lenses will be far more subtle. I personally have never been too concerned between multi-coating and single coating on LF optics. Even uncoated lenses can produce world-class results, you just have to be more careful about shielding the lens from direct sunlight. I always do this with every lens, though.

[Bob Salomon]

I'm sure this has been said before, but you will find the most difference between coated and uncoated lenses. The difference between late model single-coated lenses and multi-coated lenses will be far more subtle. I personally have never been too concerned between multi-coating and single coating on LF optics. Even uncoated lenses can produce world-class results, you just have to be more careful about shielding the lens from direct sunlight. I always do this with every lens, though.

Gene,

You are absolutely right. An uncoated or single coated lens can produce spectacular results. But when you put that same lens up head to head against the same lens with a modern multi-coating the result in a direct comparison would be less then spectacular as the coating reduces flare to a bare minimum. This raises contrast which gives better apparent sharpness as well as increases color saturation and reduces the veiling which will occur no matter how carefully you shield a lens.

While some may prefer the old fashioned look that the older uncoated lenses can produce many would rather have crisper, sharper fully saturated images that the old coatings and uncoated lenses can not produce.

When comparing it must be the same scene with the same film shot at the same time and processed and viewed the same way. Random shots at different times and scenes and films and processing will not properly show the differences between two lenses.

[Aender Brepsom]

My decision is final now. I have just bought the MC version minutes ago.
Reading Bob's last answer makes me feel confident that I have made the right decision.
Thank you all for your help.