Apo-Ronar

Has anyone used an 480 Apo-Ronar process lens on a camera? If so what was your opinion?

I use the 480mm Apo Ronar, as well as the 240mm and 300mm Apo Ronars and I think very highly of them. The Ronars that I own were made to use with copal shutters not barrel mounts and are of very recent manufacture having the latest coatings. They are extremely sharp, however you must close down to at least f 22 to use them optimally.

The coverage on the Ronars is less than it would be for a different formula of lens in the same focal length so you would have less camera movements available to you. This has never been a problem for me in outdoor situations. The 480mm should cover 8x10 well, but might not be suitable for 11x14.

No, but I have a 360mm. It's razor sharp. The small minimal aperture (f9) bothers me sometime in dim light.

G

I have an old 480mm f/9 Apo Ronar in a compound shutter that I use for 8X10. It's excellent, even at infinity.

Hi to all Ronar fans as I'm!

I talked to a Rodenstock tech in Germany today Linos and he told me that the Ronars wich came from Rodenstock in shutter where optimised for 1:20 not 1:1 and for the barrel ones they make a service to make it optimal for infinity if someone would like it. Cost about 90 euros.
But he told me also it would not be necessary for one wich is already at 1:20 he only recomands it for a barrel one from a repro cam wich is at 1:1.
And I have one 480 single coated wich is in shutter from the company and it is sharp as my APO Rodenstock N 360mm. Same is also for my 300 APO Ronar wich is MC so a tiny bit contrastier!

Hmm. In older Rodenstock propaganda they make the point that repro camera Ronars work better at distance than telephoto lenses of the same focal length.

I've never been able to shoot the 600/9 Apo Ronar that lives in one of our closets. But I have shot the the moral equivalent of the 480 Ian is contemplating. 480/9 Apo Nikkor, and a fine, fine lens.

Dan Fromm said:

Hmm. In older Rodenstock propaganda they make the point that repro camera Ronars work better at distance than telephoto lenses of the same focal length.

I've never been able to shoot the 600/9 Apo Ronar that lives in one of our closets. But I have shot the the moral equivalent of the 480 Ian is contemplating. 480/9 Apo Nikkor, and a fine, fine lens.

Click to expand...

Send that 600 to me and I'll test it for ya.

Hi Dan

This shows only how worse the telephoto lenses are! And Rodenstock did not produce Rotelars for a while. So Rodenstock wanted the Schneider Telephoto buyers to get a Ronar maybe! Just an idea for a marketing point.

Armin, in that old propaganda they also insisted that Apo Ronars were great at all distances, didn't differentiate between near and far. I know, propaganda can't be trusted.

Cheers,

Dan

I use a single-coated 240 APO-Ronar in barrel on 4x5. Works nicely, despite the relatively tight coverage. I also use an 18" APO-Lustrar, which is the same basic design. With both lenses I am constantly surprised by how much detail ends up on the negative.

The older 480 Ronars are flooding onto the market right now and are very cheap. I have been sorely tempted to get one to replace my Lustrar, which has mottled coatings and is somewhat flare prone. For me though, the difference between 18" and 19" is significant: 19" would require more rail and a second bellows for many of my shots.

Struan Gray said:

I use a single-coated 240 APO-Ronar in barrel on 4x5. Works nicely, despite the relatively tight coverage. I also use an 18" APO-Lustrar, which is the same basic design. With both lenses I am constantly surprised by how much detail ends up on the negative.

The older 480 Ronars are flooding onto the market right now and are very cheap. I have been sorely tempted to get one to replace my Lustrar, which has mottled coatings and is somewhat flare prone. For me though, the difference between 18" and 19" is significant: 19" would require more rail and a second bellows for many of my shots.

Click to expand...

Struan, how visible is y'r Apo Lustrar's coating? And how flare-prone is "somewhat?"

I ask because my 14" Apo Lustrar Ser. II's coating is nearly invisible pale blue that is, as far as I can tell, totally ineffective. I've shot it hung in front of a Nikon, found it unusable wide open, marginally usable at f/22 because of flare. And still a bit soft at f/22. That's why it lives in the closet with my 600 Apo Ronar. The AR sits unused because of size and weight, nearly 8 pounds.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan, I've never done a direct comparison with a 'better' coated lens of a similar focal length. To look at, the Lustrar coatings are pale and mottled, particularly on the inside surfaces. I have two of these lenses and both have similarly unsexy looks.

The 18" is my most-used lens, and it's not often I get unexpected or objectionable flare with it. I do use a lens hood (a Lee compendium fully extended) but I try to avoid having to carry an extra bellows and intemediate standard, so quite often the camera bellows is barely pleated and some bellows flare is inevitable.

It's better than my 6x6 Kowa lenses which I use without a shade, but worse than my unshaded multicoated Pentax 35 mm glass. 4x5 photos taken with my multicoated 90 mm S.A. or 150 mm Sironar-N of the same landscapes in the same light (inside the same lensshade) do have the edge in clarity and snap, despite taking in more sky.

The lens is sharp. Looking at even flatbed scans of my negs is like using 10x binoculars on the scene itself. I'm not very interested in sharpness per se, but the APO-lustrar is pretty amazing. I assume other well-made dialytes would do as well.

One other advantage of these over the 480 Ronars is that the 18" Lustrar will fit, just, on a Technika board, which aids usability in the field. I'm not saying it should be a cult lens, just that for the price (mine were £80 and £10) you get a lot of performance.