Nikkor M 300 or APO-Ronar 300?

[walbergb]

I had my mind set on a Nikkor M 300mm/9 to go along with my 90mm & 150mm for 4x5 until I came across an APO-Ronar 300mm/9 for sale for about half the price. Intrigued, I did some research and was pleased to find that it is a sharp lens and good for 1:1. I know I can't go wrong with the Nikkor, but what are your thoughts on the APO-Ronar? My bellows extends to 390mm.

[mdm]

I have a modern 240mm Ronar in copal, I think it is my sharpest lens, sharper than a sironar s maybe except at infinity where it is still good. Coverage isnt too bad either, better than one would expect from the stats. The detail in this is amazing, much better than the jpeg can show, it can resolve aphids that you would not notice with the naked eye, wonderful tonality and blur in out of focus areas. The corrugated iron is out of focus. The 5x7 with development problems was also made with a 240 Ronar. You can also convert them into a long focal length by using only one element, with reasonably acceptable results stopped down.

83296 83297 83298

[patrickjames]

I have the 300 APO-Ronar. Don't hesitate to get it. It is a great lens. You can't go wrong with the Nikkor either though.

[Leigh]

The Ronar is a process lens, so one would expect it to be quite good at 1:1.

Nikkor describes their M lenses as "Apochromats to infinity", meaning that they're optimized
for a full range of subject distances, not just for close work like the Ronar.

On your camera the M would allow ~96mm extension, for a 1:3 ratio and close focus of ~3.1 feet.
I don't have the FFL for the Ronar so I can't do the calculations for it.

I have the Nikkor M 300/9 and it's a superb lens. I do not have a Ronar.

- Leigh

[Armin Seeholzer]

The 300mm APO Ronar extends to 296mm at infinity out of a Rodenstock brochure!

Cheers Armin

[Drew Wiley]

Is your priority infinity or close-ups? And you might want to double check the vintage of the lenses and get the opinion of Bob S. on this. As I recall, there was a bit of a lens spacing issue regarding apo-ronars for general use, and certainly also a distinction in which
were or were not multicoated. The quality of both lens options is legendary, at least among
us LF dinosaurs. If the ronar is single-coat it might have a tad less contrast (being dialyte
contruction) versus the M series, which have only 6 air/glass interfaces in addition to being
MC. The older single-coat Nikkor tessars were Q's. I don't own a ronar, but have made comparisons with my M and the Fuji C's, which are multicoated dialytes. Any real-world
difference in performance other than image circle size is extremely subtle.

[Noah A]

I have a late-model 300 Apo-Ronar, the one with the blue stripe. I've never used it for closeups, but it's a very sharp lens at and near infinity which is where I normally use it. In fact, when I got it, I tested it next to my 210 Apo-Sironar-S and the sharpness and contrast at infinity were very, very close if not identical. I know it's not a scientific test and it's silly to compare lenses of different focal lengths, but I'm sure that, while it is optimized for 1:1, the Apo-Ronar is very good at infinity.

I've never used the Nikkor so I can't really compare.

[Scotty230358]

My 300 APO ronar (in compur electronic shutter) is a very fine lens. Sharp and contrasty at infinity plus its small and light. The only bummer with mine is that the electronic shutter does not enjoy a stellar reputation for reliability and is probably unrepairable should it go wrong. Mind you mine is probably a rarity.

[Len Middleton]

I had my mind set on a Nikkor M 300mm/9 to go along with my 90mm & 150mm for 4x5 until I came across an APO-Ronar 300mm/9 for sale for about half the price. Intrigued, I did some research and was pleased to find that it is a sharp lens and good for 1:1. I know I can't go wrong with the Nikkor, but what are your thoughts on the APO-Ronar? My bellows extends to 390mm.

First make sure your price comparisons are the same (e.g. both in shutters, or both in barrels).

The Apo-Ronar in a barrel is optimized for 1:1, but I seem to remember from somewhere they are more optimized for regular use (infinity) when factory mounted in shutters. I have a 420mm f9 Apo-Ronar factory mounted in a shutter, and for the limited use I have done with it, seems an excellent lens.

I have and used a shutter mounted 355mm f9 Repro-Claron (another dialyte design like the Apo-Ronar) on a Technika with about a 16" bellow draw, and on a flat lensboard (versus a top hat board) could focus no closer than about 10 feet. With a 300mm you should be able to focus closer than my 355mm.

How important is image quality (i.e. how high are you going to blow up your prints where image quality will be critical), versus money in your pocket to buy film? Although not certain at what point if at all, any difference will relevant.

With regard to coverage, on 4x5 there should not be any problems, as I have used my 355mm on 8x10.

Hope that helps,

Len

P.S. Many years ago I lived in "Winterpeg". Is the Brandon you refer to the same one west of there?

[walbergb]

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experiences. It has been most helpful. I can't call my self "new" at LF photography, but still have a lot to learn.

Initially, I wasn't looking at LF macro photography until I came across this Apo-Ronar for sale. It go me thinking. Both lenses are in shutters without barrels. I take it from Len's reply that I would need a barrel if I were doing 1:1.

I make 16x20 prints from most of my 4x5 negatives. I think a 16x20 of a 1:1 close-up would be exciting to create. Also, I have Ilford MG IV FB mat paper and MG IV RC pearl in large rolls. I'd like to try a very LARGE print some day before the paper gets too old. I have full use of the local art gallery's darkroom because I teach b&w photography there. It has 2x8ft sinks. I just have to figure out a system for trays.

To Len M. Yes, your geography is correct. "Winterpeg is living up to its reputation today. Winnipeg and Brandon are expecting 20-30cm of snow. I have a couple of winter landscape scenes I want to capture on LF as soon as the wind dies down.

[Leigh]

Just remember if you do macro work you must have adequate bellows extension.

At 1:1, the lens aperture must be in front of the film by a distance equal to twice* the lens focal length.

With a 300mm lens you need about 600mm of bellows draw. That's a lot.

- Leigh

*The actual distance is the Flange Focal Length + the Optical Focal Length.

[Len Middleton]

Initially, I wasn't looking at LF macro photography until I came across this Apo-Ronar for sale. It go me thinking. Both lenses are in shutters without barrels. I take it from Len's reply that I would need a barrel if I were doing 1:1.

To Len M. Yes, your geography is correct. "Winterpeg is living up to its reputation today. Winnipeg and Brandon are expecting 20-30cm of snow. I have a couple of winter landscape scenes I want to capture on LF as soon as the wind dies down.

It may be that at 4 x magnification (4x5 to 16x20), that even in a barrel or shutter either lens would do well, bear in mind in 35mm an 8x10 print is 8 x magnification. A shutter does make a lens much more easy to use, as I have both and for the "big guns" mounted in barrels (420mm Apo-Nikkor, 480mm Apo-Ronar, and 600mm Apo-Ronar) I have to use a Packard shutter, not nearly as convenient as a Copal or Compur 3...

And if I remember correctly, the snow you get now you will keep until May, so you should have lots of time to do your winter scenics, provided the snow does not get too dirty...

[Ken Lee]

I take it from Len's reply that I would need a barrel if I were doing 1:1.

Lenses in barrel are lenses mounted in a metal tube, with only a diaphragm: no shutter. The same lens can often be mounted in a shutter.

Barrel-mounted lenses are not necessarily Process lenses or Macro lenses, but Process lenses were mounted in barrel for use in the photoengraving industry.

Year ago, photographers discovered that Process lenses are very sharp and can be used for general photography. Because they are cheaper (no shutter) they can be an attractive alternative to general-purpose lenses.

Some photographers like their process lenses so much, they have them mounted in shutters by shops like SK Grimes (http://www.skgrimes.com/lens-mounting/table-of-lenses-fitted-to-shutters). Also, some manufacturers made their process lenses available in shutter. Rodenstock APO Ronar lenses are a good example.

For 1:1 we merely need adequate bellows extension: whether the lens is "in barrel" or "in shutter".

You might find this brief article (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/lenses/#Macro) helpful.

[Leigh]

I take it from Len's reply that I would need a barrel if I were doing 1:1.
No. Definitely not. The lens works the same regardless of whether it's in shutter or in barrel.
You can do 1:1 or even larger as long as you have sufficient bellows draw.

- Leigh

[Len Middleton]

No. Definitely not. The lens works the same regardless of whether it's in shutter or in barrel.
You can do 1:1 or even larger as long as you have sufficient bellows draw.


Leigh,

Much like Drew's comment in post #6, I seem to remember reading that there were subtle differences in barrel mounted and factory shutter mounted lenses that the former were optimized for 1:1 while the latter for general use. I do not have any information handy to confirm that, although Bob S. should be able to enlighten us on that issue with respect to the Apo-Ronars.

However, given the situation I wonder how many would be able to tell the difference and is this primarily a hypothetical discussion, akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (hope that is not viewed as a religious comment)...

The OP's understanding of my response of doing 1:1 is not a correct understanding as I was not clear, and frankly I do not know that I could tell the difference. But then my sight is not getting any better as I get older.

Given the situation, I would prefer to have a process lens mounted in a shutter for convenience sake (as I do not have Ken's Sinar shutter to use) rather than a barrel mounted lens and would have no concerns about shooting that combination at 1:1 or infinity.

The reasons I have those barrel lenses mounted in barrels is not because I want them optimized for 1:1, but because even though I use them for general use, I am not prepared to pay the cost to mount them in shutters at this time.

Hope that provides some clarity,

Len

[Ken Lee]

Since we're on the subject: barrel-mounted lenses usually have their own diaphragm. Many of those diaphragms have a lot of blades, and their apertures are rather round at all settings: this results in more pleasing blur rendition, particularly when the scene contains specular highlights or small spots. Vintage lenses often have wonderfully round irises.

When we mount a lens into a modern shutter, we end up with the shutter's diaphragm. Depending on the shutter, the diaphragm can have as few as 5 blades.

So in addition to size, weight and cost, another reason to consider lenses in barrel, is their nice apertures.

[walbergb]

Again, thank you everyone. I'm getting wiser by the post:)

[Andrew Plume]

fwiw and I'm very happy to be corrected.....................

the Nikkor M line of lenses seem to have their own particular cachet and some ardent enthusiastic followers and seem to be very highly rated

the APO Ronar's not so, even though they're very good - possibly because more were made?? but they never achieve prices which they really should make over on the big auction site

regards

andrew

[Len Middleton]

the Nikkor M line of lenses seem to have their own particular cachet and some ardent enthusiastic followers and seem to be very highly rated

the APO Ronar's not so, even though they're very good - possibly because more were made?? but they never achieve prices which they really should make over on the big auction site


Ah yes, the economic laws of supply and demand raises its ugly head...

So how many 300mm Apo-Ronar's were produced relative to 300mm Nikkor M's? How many years were the Nikkor M's produced relative to the product lifetime of the Apo-Ronar's?

Interesting to note that no responses to this thread have included by someone with experience with both lenses. Not certain why that might be...

[Atul Mohidekar]

I have compared late Nikkor 300 M and late APO-Ronar 300 (with blue stripe) lenses side-by-side in a non-scientific test. In my test results I like the Ronar contrast over Nikkor, but the results are close. The late blue stripe Ronars (I believe made in 1996-2000) are extremely rare to find and came in with factory installed Copal shutters. So if you get your hands on one of these Ronars, I would grab it. The Nikkor 300 M is also a great lens, but can be found relatively easily.

[Leigh]

Interesting to note that no responses to this thread have included by someone with experience with both lenses. Not certain why that might be...
I think folks who consider this type of lens find a very distinct difference between them, and
choose whichever one suits their needs.

Nikon advertised the M as "Apochromats to infinity", touting the fact that they were
designed for excellent performance at all subject distances.

In contrast, the Ronar was always known as a process lens, extremely good for close work, but
not designed for longer distances.

- Leigh

[mdm]

Actually, the rodenstock literature sayes that Ronars are very acceptable at infinity. The MTF for Ronars is every bit equal to Sironar S's without the dip that the s's suffer from off centre, though it is obviously calculated 1:1 rather than infinity. http://www.prograf.ru/rodenstock/largeformat_en.html#Apo-Ronar

[Leigh]

Hi David,

The first sentence in the description of the Ronar as you linked is: "The Apo-Ronar is the classic process lens."
It goes on to say that: "...it is a first-class long focal lenght lens for all formats..."
Lots of marketing hype and innuendo, but no solid description.

The Nikkor M, in contrast, says those lenses are optimized for infinity. Perhaps just a difference in advertising text.

I have both of the Nikkor M lenses and find them to be excellent performers.
I do not have any Apo-Ronars, so I cannot compare the two types.

It appears that the difference is more in marketing emphasis than in actual performance.

BTW, I was unable to find MTF charts on the Russian site you linked. Are they elsewhere on that site? Thanks.

- Leigh

[Arne Croell]

I regularly use an Apo-Germinar 300mm for my photography (same design as an Apo-Ronar), but I have tested 7 different lenses in the 300mm range including the MC Apo-Ronar and the M-Nikkor at 1:20 magnification and with one exception the differences between those lenses that I could see were too small to matter in any real situation. If anything, the Apo-Ronar was a tad better in the corners* than the Nikkor. The results can be found on pages 21-23 of this document: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf. Of course, I only tested a single sample of each, the variation between samples is probably as big as the ones seen in the test.

*The corners of a 4x5 negative without movements, which is about 1/2 (Nikkor) to 2/3rd (Ronar) of the image circle - Tessar types like the Nikkor-M tend to have a dip in their MTF curves around 1/2-2/3 of the image circle and then rise again, so the Nikkor might well be better near the edge of the circle than the Ronar, but I didn't test that.

[mdm]

Someone posted it once before. Here it is again. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4v2UaSUoMI6ZldzdGRxeVJRb1U

[Ken Lee]

I regularly use an Apo-Germinar 300mm for my photography (same design as an Apo-Ronar), but I have tested 7 different lenses in the 300mm range including the MC Apo-Ronar and the M-Nikkor at 1:20 magnification and with one exception the differences between those lenses that I could see were too small to matter in any real situation. If anything, the Apo-Ronar was a tad better in the corners* than the Nikkor. The results can be found on pages 21-23 of this document: http://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf. Of course, I only tested a single sample of each, the variation between samples is probably as big as the ones seen in the test.

*The corners of a 4x5 negative without movements, which is about 1/2 (Nikkor) to 2/3rd (Ronar) of the image circle - Tessar types like the Nikkor-M tend to have a dip in their MTF curves around 1/2-2/3 of the image circle and then rise again, so the Nikkor might well be better near the edge of the circle than the Ronar, but I didn't test that.

Beautiful tests !

There's nothing quite like the results we get from a photographic artist who also just happens to be first-rate physical scientist :cool:

[Leigh]

Thanks, David. That's quite impressive.

- Leigh