Apo-Ronar MC vs. Sironar S

[nick rowan]

Has anyone ever compared Rodenstock's Apo-Ronar MC with its Sironar S or N?

I am contemplating the purchase of a 300mm, 360mm, or 480mm lens for 8 x10 portr aiture relatively close up (half-figure), and am wondering if there would be a d ifference in sharpness, contrast, resolution, overall picture quality, as well a s aesthetic "look" between these two admittedly dissimliar lens types.

The Sironar S is Rodenstock's top-of-the-line general use lens, reputed to be am ong its sharpest, while the Apo-Ronar, a "process lens", is advertised as "world famous for extreme sharpness", particularly at 1:1.

Bob Solomon of HP Marketing has told me that the Apo-Ronar was never designed to render properly the volume and space of three-dimensional objects such as a hum an being--and is thus not the right lens for portraiture. Moreover, he maintain s that, in spite of the process lens excelling at close shooting distances, at r atios of 1:4 or 1:5 (one-quarter or one-fifth life size, my taking ratio) the Si ronar S will still outperform the Apo-Ronar on all counts, most notably in terms of sharpness.

Do you agree? Any thoughts?

[Cesar Barreto]

Hi, Nick. Are you sure you need all that resolution on 8x10 portraiture? Probably, the most interesting aspect to look after is the quality of out-of-focus planes, as they will sure come around with those lenses. Unfortunatly, testing both may be the only way to be certain about the aesthetically look you care for. About objective qualities, Sironars sure can stand the proof. Regards.

Cesar B.

[Yuval Sion]

As the aye can resolv no more then 7 lines per mm' on the print, it will matter only if you are going to enlarge to a realy big scale. If the lens gives you 60 lines at f 45, than you can enlarg to 68cm on 85cm with no visible fall in qoality. Considering viewing distans for such format, i don't think you have to worry in choosing between this two lenses, both are exelent so go for the less e xpensive one. Yuval