G Claron vs Apo Ronar

[R T]

I was wondering whether anyone has some feedback on a G Claron vs the equivalent , focal length, Apo Ronar? Assuming the latest model? THanks.

Roland

[giancatarina]

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0042SL

[giancatarina]

this is it http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0042SL

[Bob Salomon]

G Claron is a wide field process lens the Apo Ronar covers a smaller circle.

The Apo Gerogon is the Rodenstock wide field process lens but it doesn't fit in a shutter without a lot of machining.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

who would want to put anything into a shutter.

[adam friedberg]

steve grimes, apparently

[Julio Fernandez]

Roland: Clarons are very sharp and contrasty at the centre of the image but to have corner to corner sharpness you need a substantially longer focal length, 270mm and above. Longer Clarons get large and heavy. Ronars are very sharp and well corrected but because of the smaller image circle you'd need at least 300mm to cover 4X5 at infinity. Clarons are slightly more contrasty than Ronars (at the centre) though not as uniformly corrected for all magnifications as Ronars. Because of the size and weight, for landscapes where these are important issues I'd pick a Ronar. The 300 is about right if you have the bellows draw.

[giancatarina]

Ronars are very sharp and well corrected but because of the smaller image circle you'd need at least 300mm to cover 4X5 at infinit y you can use a 240 apo ronar as well : image circle @22 is 212mm maximum rise for landscape: about 39mm (300mm image circle @22 is 264mm but you need a long bellow)