PDA

View Full Version : Rodenstock 300 APO Ronar f9 optimized for?



schafphoto
6-Dec-2011, 16:52
A question for the lens-heads...

The Ronar 300mm, is it optimized for close-up and copy work or infinity? I'd like to use it for architecture - usually in the 25' to infinity range... or I can relegate it to copy work of blueprints and get another for 5x7 fieldwork. Mine is Serial #1048954 in Copal 1 shutter f9 to f90, with 49 filter thread and a silver Rodenstock quality seal. It came with my 8x10 copy camera from a local lab, which is why I ask.

Any ideas where my happy aperture for infinity would be?? f22 is my guess. I shoot 5x7 and 4x5 with it in the field.

Thanks in advance for the expertise.

Drew Wiley
6-Dec-2011, 17:12
I don't know the serial #'s, but given that it's in shutter, it will probably be stellar at
infinity anywhere from around f/16 to f/32. These lenses have a very solid reputation
for long-distance field work, as well as for closeup. Perhaps Bob will chime in with his
Rodenstock expertise.

David Swinnard
6-Dec-2011, 17:28
I've used mine for a number of years now on 4x5 and have no complaints about it's sharpness. It may be optimized for closer distances but I've never used it in that way - just at "out there" kinds of distances. I'm very happy with the lens, usually stopped down in the 22-45 range depending on the DOF I'm looking for.

Ken Lee
6-Dec-2011, 17:56
From a B&H Photo Video document on Large Format Lenses - which appears to copy the manufacturer's own text (emphasis mine):

APO RONAR in Copal Shutter
The scope of these Classic Process, 4 elements in 4 group lenses, with their outstanding definition, goes far beyond processing and product shots. With an image circle of 48, they are first class long focal telephoto lenses. These lenses can also be used for close-ups. Though ideally corrected for 1:1 reproduction, the Apo-Ronar lenses maintains their image quality, even at high reductions (distance range) or magnification. The apo-chromatic correction keeps even high contrast outlines free from color fringing.

Ken Lee
6-Dec-2011, 18:02
Germane to this discussion: in testing my 210mm Macro Sinaron at equivalent long distances, I found it indistinguishable from my 150mm APO Sironar-S - equivalent to the point where I see no reason to get a 210 Sironar (or any other 210) as a complementary lens in that length.

Perhaps at the extremes of coverage, one might be able to see a difference, or with other more rigorous testing procedures - but for ordinary purposes, these lenses are like the APO Nikkor and Fujinon A (and G-Claron when stopped down sufficiently): superb at infinity also.

mdm
6-Dec-2011, 19:43
I would say it would make a very fine 300mm for 5x7, comparable in size to a Fujinon C or Nikkor M. I have a 240mm Ronar, I think they cover more than the specs say, and one advantage of the design (I believe) is thet they have the same coverage wide open as stopped down. Mine is very sharp even at f9.

J. Fada
6-Dec-2011, 22:15
I have a 300mm APO Ronar (also 49mm) that I bought in cells and put in a shutter as was intentioned. All I can say is it is a pretty spectacular lens. Sharp as a tack without too much contrast.

schafphoto
6-Dec-2011, 23:14
So in my camera case it will go on a custom anti-recessed lens board with a cone.

Atul Mohidekar
8-Dec-2011, 08:44
I was fortunate to have the latest version of 300mm Nikkor M and the latest version of 300mm APO-Ronar (blue ring, Copal mounted). I did a non-scientific lens test using a lens resolution target and viewed the results under a 10x loupe. In my test, the Ronar marginally outperformed Nikkor. I have been using the Ronar extensively and have been very happy with the results.


// Atul

Bob Salomon
8-Dec-2011, 12:20
1:1. They simply can not match an Apo Sironar-S at 1:5 to infinity with 3 dimensional subjects. Nor will they match an Apo Sironar Digital at 1:3 to 5:1 for 3 dimensional objects at macro and close-up distances. But the S and the macro won't equal an Apo Ronar at 1:1 or near 1:1 copy of flat art work.
Also, the Apo Ronar is a process lens corrected for use at f22 only.

hiend61
9-Dec-2011, 02:55
I have the 240 and 480 Apo Ronars. I shot a lot of macro with the 240 with perfect results. Both are superb at infinity and I was not able to find diferences at infinity with my Sironars-N 210 and 300 in 100x150 cm (20x40 inch) enlargements from 13x18 Fujichrome Provia 100F.

Literature says these lenses are optimized for 1:1, and they are superb at this magnification, but I find them equally superb at infinity when stopped down to 22 if you do not require great movements.

Bob Salomon
9-Dec-2011, 07:41
I have the 240 and 480 Apo Ronars. I shot a lot of macro with the 240 with perfect results. Both are superb at infinity and I was not able to find diferences at infinity with my Sironars-N 210 and 300 in 100x150 cm (20x40 inch) enlargements from 13x18 Fujichrome Provia 100F.

Literature says these lenses are optimized for 1:1, and they are superb at this magnification, but I find them equally superb at infinity when stopped down to 22 if you do not require great movements.

Checked the edges and compared identical imagery for detail in three dimensional details at center and edge?

Or compared dis-similar shots from different times?

Noah A
9-Dec-2011, 23:24
I have a late blue-stripe 300 Apo-Ronar, and while it is optimized for close-up copy work, it's very, very good at infinity at small apertures.

I did some reasonably careful tests between my 210 Apo-Sironar-S and the 300 Apo Ronar, and any difference in sharpness at infinity was invisible or nearly so with a 10x loupe or in a print section equal to a 40x50in. print from drum-scanned negs.

I tested at f/22 and shot one shot with the lens zeroed and one with the maximum rise allowed by my MT2000. I compared the center of the unshifted shots and the edge of the shifted ones.

Additionally, the color rendering is very nice, it seems similar to my other Rodenstock lenses.

Arne Croell
10-Dec-2011, 03:34
The Apo-Ronar is a dialyte lens type as are the Apo-Artar, Repro-Claron, Apo-Germinar, and other lenses, and to quote from Kingslake's book "A history of the photographic lens", p.100: "The aberrations of a dialyte remain surprisingly constant over a wide range of object distances..." That is why one can use them with perfectly good results at infinity, even though as symmetric process lenses they were originally designed for 1:1.

I addition, the corner perfomance at infinity can be slightly increased by adjusting the cell spacing. In the Docter Apo-Germinar this was done by a removable washer, and for the Apo-Ronars I remember several discussions here quoting Rodenstock employees that the spacing of the shuttered versions is actually optimized for 1:20, not 1:1 (maybe Bob can chime in on this). The performance increase, while certainly there, is only visible at big enlargements, I could only see it in my Apo-Germinar negatives with a microscope, not in prints up to 16x20 from 4x5. So using the 1:1 optimized version gives perfectly good results, too.

Ken Lee
10-Dec-2011, 04:42
Checked the edges and compared identical imagery for detail in three dimensional details at center and edge?

Or compared dis-similar shots from different times?

Germane to what the good Docter has reported:

I confess that I only examined the central portion of the negatives, which is what I generally use. Product photographers are more likely to use their lenses out to the extremes of coverage - just as architectural photographers will do with their infinity-corrected lenses. Many of us who shoot portraits and scenery, are more easily satisfied.

Below we see the same subject shot at 15 feet and 21 feet with 150mm APO Sironar S and 210mm Macro Sinaron, enlarged as much as my humble Epson 700 scanner will allow before the quality drops. Because each negative was scanned separately, any differences in contrast can be easily adjusted. Not scientific - just "empirical", "anecdotal", and "amateur" :o

I will repeat my "Calcium Lime Rust" test and examine the extremes of coverage.

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/lensTest2011.jpg
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/210and150mmlenses150.jpghttp://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/210and150mmlenses210.jpg

hiend61
10-Dec-2011, 05:25
Checked the edges and compared identical imagery for detail in three dimensional details at center and edge?

Or compared dis-similar shots from different times?

First with flat objects (big format paintings, about 2x3 meters in 13x18 and 4x5), with same lighting, just change lenses and camera position. Both Ronars and Sironars performed the same, excellent center and corners. Maybe Ronars a bit more saturated colors.
Second in landscape at infinity, at the same time but without changing camera position, to have a bit different framing. There were buildings involved and lot of detail in corners. Mostly 13x18. No diferences observed.

Never used the 480 in still life with three dimensional objects, but used 240 Ronar with food and jewelry shots at close range in 4x5, and I found it better than the 210 Sironar-N at 5:1 1:1. At greater distances I found both the same, of couse with the logical restrictions of the Ronars in image circle.

hiend61
10-Dec-2011, 05:50
First with flat objects (big format paintings, about 2x3 meters in 13x18 and 4x5), with same lighting, just change lenses and camera position. Both Ronars and Sironars performed the same, excellent center and corners. Maybe Ronars a bit more saturated colors.
Second in landscape at infinity, at the same time but without changing camera position, to have a bit different framing. There were buildings involved and lot of detail in corners. Mostly 13x18. No diferences observed.

Never used the 480 in still life with three dimensional objects, but used 240 Ronar with food and jewelry shots at close range in 4x5, and I found it better than the 210 Sironar-N at 5:1 1:1. At greater distances I found both the same, of couse with the logical restrictions of the Ronars in image circle.

I purchased the 240 for food and jewelry work on 4x5, and the 480 as a general purpose long lens. After making some test with the Sironar-N 480 and Ronar 480. I made up my mind for Apo Ronar because I had no need of the huge image circle or the Sironar N, I found quality the same and the Ronar was nearly half of the Sironar price.

schafphoto
10-Dec-2011, 18:34
Thanks for the info! Reading between the lines, I'm going to continue to use the RONAR for my 300mm instead of purchasing a 300mm Nikon or Fuji. The Copal 3 shuttered lenses, while they may be marginally sharper their weight is an issue and I sometimes use the 1/400 shutter speed when on cherry pickers and cranes.

-Schaf

Armin Seeholzer
11-Dec-2011, 10:51
and for the Apo-Ronars I remember several discussions here quoting Rodenstock employees that the spacing of the shuttered versions is actually optimized for 1:20, not 1:1

It was me because Herr Wenzel at Rodenstock told me so!
But Bob will not like it, he prefers to sell more lenses thats he's job;--))))

Cheers Armin

hiend61
11-Dec-2011, 16:00
Thanks for the info! Reading between the lines, I'm going to continue to use the RONAR for my 300mm instead of purchasing a 300mm Nikon or Fuji. The Copal 3 shuttered lenses, while they may be marginally sharper their weight is an issue and I sometimes use the 1/400 shutter speed when on cherry pickers and cranes.

-Schaf

You will be more than happy with the Apo Ronar 300. Reinhart Wolf, one of the most reputable german architecture photographers, shot his multi awarded books "Faces of Buildings", "New York" and "Castles in Spain" using a Sinar Norma 8x10, Super Angulons
of 121, 165 and 210 and Apo Ronars 360, 480, 600 and 1000. There were no Sinaron-N or Symar-S lens type in his cases, and the chromes he did were absolutely stunning.