Real-World coverage of a couple of lenses: Symmar 360/620, APO Ronar 485

[Paul Kinzer]

I own both of these lenses, and have been doing lots of reading. My intention is to build a 14x17 camera. (I know; I've been saying that for years, but it'll happen...***)

I've read in many places that the 360 convertible Symmar will cover the 560mm nominal diagonal of a 14x17 sheet of film, but the 1962 catalog from Schneider, which I found at Camera Eccentric, claims it only has 500mm coverage. Some post around the internet use that 500mm image circle when discussing this lens. I trust those that say it will cover 14x17, since so many do say that who've actually used the lens on their 14x17 cameras. But I'd like a little more clarification. I realize that Schneider is conservative in their descriptions (I've found that to be true myself with some other lenses of theirs), but was there some justification? Are the corners soft, for instance? I only plan to do contact prints, so I don't need perfection.

And, after deciding to write and ask about this, I figured I'd bring up my 485mm (19 inch) APO-Ronar. Rodenstock say that the 480mm APO-Ronar has an image circle of 396mm in the catolog of theirs I found again, on Camera Eccentric. I imagine there's little difference between that lens and mine (though I don't know why there are two so similar in focal length). But I'm wondering if anyone has used this lens for ULF, and how big its real-world image circle is. I imagine it will not cover 14x17, and if that gets confirmed -- not by catalogs but by someone who's used it, if possible -- I'll sell it. Knowing what it actually covers will allow me to let potential buyers know.

*** I have nearly completed the building of the 14x17's proto-type: an 8x10 camera with the ability to go from less than 180mm to about 1100mm of bellows draw. I hope to use it for macro work.

[Bernice Loui]

Some info here:
https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blo...ndations-14x17


Bernice

[Corran]

I have the 360mm Symmar convertible. It covers 12x20 with room to spare, so will take care of 14x17 fine. I don't have any issues with corner softness, even with scans.

[Tin Can]

Great thread

I am testing those lenses now, but only on 11X14

I need to make a 14X17 as I have the film and holders

[diversey]

Below is another article link about lenses for 14x17 and 12x20 formats.

https://photographylife.com/best-lenses-14x17-12x20

[Paul Kinzer]

Thanks for the comments so far! The links, from Bernice Loui and diversy, are two that I'm quite familiar with.

Corran: thanks for the personal report. It's amazing to me that this lens will cover the nearly 600mm diagonal of 12x20 'with room to spare', when Schneider gives only 500mm as its image circle.

I had bought the 360 Symmar years before this 14x17 idea even formed. Why? Because it was so amazingly beautiful, and the guy selling it on eBay was asking so little for it. It's more or less identical to this one. At the site where I found that photo, they are asking 690 Euros for it, and I'm pretty sure I paid less than half that. Mine is newer, too, with a serial number of 10,228,747. That means it was made sometime in 1967. I had not been aware that they were still using Compound shutters that late, but what do I know? Mine has now been attached, still on the Sinar board, to a 158mm square Toyo board. (Both my nearly complete 8x10, and the 14x17 I have in mind will use Toyo View 45 G front standards).

I still hope to hear about folks' experience with the 480 APO Ronar, or the 485 APO Ronar CL (which is what I have.) Tin Can, you said you've got these lenses. I'd be grateful for your thoughts. (Also, I have 14x17 x-ray film, one holder, and a set of 16x20 Chamonix bellows. So I have NO EXCUSES to not get working on this next camera. Well, other than my wife insisting that, before I spend more money on my hobbies, I need to make some by selling something; hence my thinking about selling the 485.)

Finally, I'm wondering if anyone has actual experience using the 360/620mm Symmar in the 620 mode. That's near 'normal' for 14x17, so it would be nice, if the 485 APO Ronar won't cover and I sell it, if I can use the Symmar as both a wide and a normal lens. I read a bunch today about the sharpness of convertible lenses using just the one element. There very mixed opinions, and it seemed like another one of those times when lots of folks repeated things they'd read or heard, rather than reporting actual experiences. I have a 760mm APO Ronar, too, for a bit of a longer lens.

[Corran]

I need to make a 14X17 as I have the film and holders

Same! I want to make a basic box cam at hyperfocal for the 210xl.

I have never used the 360 Symmar converted to 620. Maybe one day, but it's much too cramped here on the east coast for that focal length, at least for me.

[Tin Can]

Ha!

My big box will also use hyperfocus and adjust from film plane for a few lenses

[Vaidotas]

I personally prefer to trust Rodenstock data sheet.
480 is for 24x30 at f/22 with minimal movements.
My personal extreme experience was 10 cm front rise with Apo Ronar 600 f/22 on 18x24 cm at infinity, no light fall off (within Rodenstock specification).

[Paul Kinzer]

My own hope is to use my 8x10 camera for close-up work with tiny things in some sort of studio setting, and the 14x17 for out-in-the-world images. But, I have to admit, that an issue I have is that I enjoy making things so much that I don't take enough time to actually use them.