Nikkor M 300 or APO-Ronar 300?

[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. 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 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.