Large Format Lens Selection

[capital]

Hello,


I currently have a 150 mm large format lens for my 4x5, but would like to get a longer lens in the 300 - 500 mm range, preferably toward the 500mm end.

I am currently trying to evaluate if a Rodenstock Ronar Multicoated 480mm f/9 in a copal #3 shutter is a good choice.

Has anyone used this used this particular lens to produce fine art quality prints enlarged to 16inchx20inch or larger from color negatives or transparencies of landscape or other subject matter (ratios 1:30 to 1:infinity) ?

I am trying to evaluate if I should continue my search for another lens that costs less than $700 (used) or make use of this lens.

Thank you,

C.

[BernardLanguillier]

I have personnally been extremely happy with my Nikkor M 300 f9.

I believe that they do a 450 mm in the same series. It might be worth checking out!

Regards,
Bernard

[Jack Flesher]

I use both the Nikkor 450 and APO Ronar 480 on my 8x10.  My Ronar is a newer one and is multi-coated (there are older ones out there that are not MC). Anyway, it is simply one of the sharpest, crispest lenses I have ever shot with on any format.  Both have more coverage for 4x5 than you could ever use, but compared to the Nikkor, the APO Ronar has less total coverage which might be an isue for cameras larger than 8x10.  

Cheers,

[capital]

Thank you both for your responses.

Jack--At what working distance were you using the Rodenstock Ronar 480, as I've heard that this lens has been optimized for (macro) 1:1 copy work?

Also, if you were using it as a moderate/long lens for general photography what kind enlargements have you been able to make from images made by this lens, did they turn to mush at certain size?

Thank you,

C.

[Jack Flesher]

Thank you both for your responses.

Jack--At what working distance were you using the Rodenstock Ronar 480, as I've heard that this lens has been optimized for (macro) 1:1 copy work?

Also, if you were using it as a moderate/long lens for general photography what kind enlargements have you been able to make from images made by this lens, did they turn to mush at certain size?

Thank you,

C.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

First off, it is my understanding there are at least two versions of APO Ronars.  The ones in a factory barrel mount were optimised for copy work at 1:1 while those factory mounted in a shutter were optimised for 1:5 or 1:10 and are thus better as taking lenses.  My lens is a factory mount and is very sharp -- stunningly so and I have never run into "mush" at any size.  It is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever shot with on any format, period.
~~~

On the topic of reproduction ratios and optimal performance, I also shoot with G-Clarons and they are all optimised for 1:1.  Nor were they ever available multi-coated, only single and perhaps non-coated.  Anyway, when stopped down to f22 they are just as sharp at infinity as any comparable focal Plasmat, and especially with 8x10, performance is quite excellent.  Centers may not be quite as crisp at infinity, but edges are excellent, so sort of a trade-off.  The biggest issue I've run into with them is their being single-coated and thus a bit more flare prone if shooting toward the sun.  

The big advantage to copy lens designs is they are significantly smaller than a comparable focal Plasmat and still offer large coverage.  Moreover, most copy lenses can be adjusted for slightly better infinity performance by separating the elements slightly -- like 1/2 to 1mm.  However, while this increases center resolution it generally reduces edge performance by a similar degree. Most copy lenses show better edge performance than a Plasmat to begin with, so a trade-off of sorts any way you look at it.  I use my lenses at whatever their standard  spacing is and have not had any issues.

Okay, probably way more than you wanted to know -- sorry for being so long-winded

[capital]

First off, it is my understanding there are at least two versions of APO Ronars.  The ones in a factory barrel mount were optimised for copy work at 1:1 while those factory mounted in a shutter were optimised for 1:5 or 1:10 and are thus better as taking lenses.  My lens is a factory mount and is very sharp -- stunningly so and I have never run into "mush" at any size.  It is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever shot with on any format, period.
~~~
 

Okay, probably way more than you wanted to know -- sorry for being so long-winded ;)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Jack for your information and the more information is indeed helpful.

I have the Ronar 480 in a copal #3 shutter, however how can I tell if it is like yours (i.e. "optimized for taking")?

[Jack Flesher]

Thanks Jack for your information and the more information is indeed helpful.

I have the Ronar 480 in a copal #3 shutter, however how can I tell if it is like yours (i.e. "optimized for taking")?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now way to know for certain...  However, if you remove the front element there may be a shim ring at the flange. If so, it was added at the factory and a good indication yours was factory mounted and properly spaced.  If there isn't one there, then it can mean it was an aftermarket mount OR the original was spot-on and didn't need it.  If it is a good, sharp performer, then I submit it doesn't matter

Cheers,

[karmanat]

It's time to take a look here:
sandra bullock movie

[capital]

Now way to know for certain...  However, if you remove the front element there may be a shim ring at the flange. If so, it was added at the factory and a good indication yours was factory mounted and properly spaced.  If there isn't one there, then it can mean it was an aftermarket mount OR the original was spot-on and didn't need it.  If it is a good, sharp performer, then I submit it doesn't matter :)

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks again Jack. I unscrewed the front but don't see any obvious shim ring, is this something that becomes loose when the front element is unscrewed?

C.