Apo Ronar 240/9 or Fuji A 240/9 for 4x5 inch?

[Rapahel Zeiher]

I'm fairly new to large format (4x5 inch)an have an option to buy an used 240mm for landscape photography. Fuji 240/9 MC serial number 521xxx about 550$ Apo Ronar 240/9 MC serial number 10 8xx xxx about 500$

Did someone test the Rodenstock Apo ronar 240/9 and the Fuji 240/A ? I found a l ot of informations in the LF forum about the 240/9 Fuji but it looks that the ap o ronar has not the same success (image cercle of 212mm ?, it's the only reason ?)

Thanks and regards from France

[Glenn Kroeger]

Raphael: Both are fine lenses, and I use the Apo-Ronar on 6x9cm, but for 4x5, I would opt for the larger coverage of the Fujinon.

[Dave Willison]

I've have a Fuji 210 W and two of thier medium format rangefinder cameras (6x7 and 6x9). I've always been pleased with Fuji optics and their reputation seems excellent from just about every post I've ever read! I assume that the 240 (like the 210) covers 5x7 and 8x10. This might be an advantage if you ever decide to play around with a larger format. I don't know much about Rodenstock lenses. I think the Ronar is a process lens similar to Schneider's G-claron. Process lenses are normally designed for shooting at close distances, but the G-Claron (355) has a wide following among those doing landscape work with big cameras (11x14 etc.) Other process lenses like the Goerz Red Dot Artar enjoy a similar reputation, but I have not read alot about the Ronar being used in the same way.

Hope

[Paul Schilliger]

Raphael, both of these lenses are process lenses with optimal correction at 1:1. That being said, both perform very well at all distances at working apertures. From the numbers provided, both are from a decade or so, Fujinon perhaps less. You can count on the best multicoating and top performances. My op inion: go with the larger image circle Fujinon. I newly own that lens and it's a tiny but great performer with C opal #0 (Ronar Copal#1). As for the results, the two films I made are not yet back from the lab...! but as suggested by the many praiseful comments, you can count on the best quality. Make sure you do a little search on Kerry Thalman n's informative Large format photography home page. Worth the tour.

[Sal Santamaura]

I believe the Fuji is corrected for 1:5.

[Bob Salomon]

A six digit Rodenstock serial number starting with 521xxx is a very old version from about 1933 The 10,xxx.xxx version is from the late 80's

[Richard S. Ross]

A 521xxx serial number Fuji A 240/9 is only a couple of years old. My 522xxx was purchased new in 1999.

[Rapahel Zeiher]

Thanks all, I appreciate everyones input!

Bob, the Rodenstock has a 10,xxx.xxx serial number. On Kerry Thalmann's informative Large format homepage I found information about the 240/9 Fuji with 521xxx serial number. Both of these lenses are process lenses, but it looks that the apo ronar has not the same success! Did someone own or test both lens? Mr.Perez and Mr.Thalmann didn't test apo ronar (only Glaron, Nikon M and Fuji A).

I have to decide end of this week with lens I will buy...

[QT Luong]

Why would you want the ronar ? The Fuji is smaller, has a considerably larger image circle, and is considered by many on this forum to be optically excellent. There isn't enough variability in the quality of modern LF lenses for the ronar to outperform significantly the Fuji, which has more interesting specs.

[Bob Salomon]

What do you mean by success?

Over 90% of all vertical process cameras were equipped with the Apo Ronar or it' s sister the Apo Ronar CL.

Far more of these were made and sold then the Fuji lens.

As I indicated earlier one lens you are looking at is almost 60 years old. That in itself should give you an idea of it's success. Large lens companies do not keep producing lenses that have no market.

Having said that Apo Ronars are now out of production and stocks are limited to available factory supplies. This is because the Process Camera market no longer exists and the large format lens market is far too small to justify additional production.