All of the questions regarding the Artars come about because they were for producing graphics and rated at 1:1 using f22. Because of the way they were used, the rated image circles are huge. When trying to use the lens for another, general, purpose with the lens focused at infinity, the size of the acceptable image circle is much smaller than what Goerz gave in their brochures.
I like the Artars and I use several. Somewhere, I read something published by Rodenstock about their Ronars, which I also use and like. If I remember correctly, what they said, basically, was that the rating of a Ronar could be relied on with the lens focused at infinity on a format where the long side of the negative was no more than half of the focal length of the lens. This, assuming the f stop used was the same; which, for the Artar, was f22 and I think it was the same for the Ronar.
Of course, as you focus closer, the image circle gets larger, until, at 1:1 you have a lens rated at zero distortion for the published image circle size. In my experience, for use at infinity, the requirement that the lens focal length be double the length of the long side of the negative is conservative. While my standards may not be as high as some, I think the rule mentioned above (the focal length equal to the sum of the length and width of the negative) is a usable one. In fact, I have been quite pleased with the results using both Artars and Ronars where the focal length has been slightly smaller than that; an 8 1/4 inch Artar, for example, on 4x5 gives excellent results even though, at 210mm, it is slightly smaller than the rule requires.
While I like the Artars, I think I like the Ronars even better. I cannot say it categorically, because I don't have enough comparisons on an apple to apple basis, but, from what I have seen, I think the Ronars have the edge if they are the later ones. Also, I have read where the Ronars that were installed in shutters were optimized for focus at infinity. I don't know enough about lenses to know how that would have been done, by varying the spacing of the elements or what? When I had mine removed from their barrel mounts and installed in shutters, I did not ask if this was something that was taken care of at that time. In other words, if you are using a lens focused at infinity that is still in a barrel mount, I don't know if your results will be as acceptable to you as mine, using lenses mounted in shutters, were to me.
As to the angle of the lens, about 46 degrees, I think, that is not a problem if you follow the guidance regarding the relationship of the focal length to the negative dimensions. The other usual complaint about them is that they are slow. That is true, but the tradeoff for their being slow is that, for a relatively long lens, they are also smaller, lighter and less expensive.
