Apo - Ronar for ULF?

[marco_f]

I'm trying to determine the useful coverage of a late fifties vintage 600mm Apo-

Ronar, factory mounted in a #5 Compound shutter. I've searched these forums and

so far have found only a maximum image circle of 496mm at f22, for the Apo-

Ronar process lenses. This would make it unsuitable for the 8x20 format that I

plan on using. However, in the Nov/Dec 1990 issue of View Camera, Dick Arentz

indicates that he uses one of these (process type) for 12x20 work. I have a

copy of "Press and View Camera Technique", by Paul Wahl, Amphoto 1962, which

has a chart listing many lenses available at that time, with coverage. This

little volume indicates that the 600mm Apo-Ronar in shutter will cover 25x30!

It also claims huge coverage for the shorter Apo-Ronars. Is this possible? Is

there a difference between the process and shutter versions of these lenses?

Does anyone have actual experience using these for ULF work?

[big toys are better]

The symmetrical process lenses like the apo-Ronar and G-Claron don't give the best coverage for their focal lengths but will give more coverage as you stop them down. 500mm at f/22 is not a bad start for the 600mm and I suspect you can get more than enough coverage for the skinny 8x20 format (545mm) by the time you hit f/32 or 45. Keep in mind that the numbers given by manufacturers are always a little imprecise-- what you see on film is what you get.

 

An excellent alternative is the Fujinon 600mm C lens which Badger lists at around 620mm of coverage, probably at f/22 given it is an f/11.5 lens. (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=176)

 

Disclosure-- I don't work for any photographic companies, so what I tell you is from my own experiences and research

[bob_salomon]

Process lenses are made for copying. The circles you see are more likely for 1:1 then for

infinity. In that case half it for infinity. Also lenses cover circles not rectangles so at the

specified reproduction ration the lens coverd a 30" circle.

 

All Apo Ronar lenses were process lenses. The shuttered versions are simply process lenses

in a shutter. They may or may not have been re-optimized for infinity work. But their

coverage remains the same.

[michael_briggs2]

The coverage charts from the lens manufacturers were intended for exacting use, either in

graphic arts usage or for non-U LF when enlarging was expected. For ULF, were the use of

the negative is to make contact prints, for some lenses larger coverage is possible. Your

best tactic is to trust the usage reports of experienced ULF photographers.

 

For what its worth, the official coverage of the Apo-Ronars was 48 degrees (less for the

longer focal lengths), corresponding to a diameter of coverage, at infinity, of about 0.89

times the focal length. If you see a diameter that is twice this, as Bob said, it is for 1:1.

A 1985 brochure that I have confirms the "official" coverage value of 496 mm diameter

(which is 45 degrees) at f22 and infinity for the 600 mm Apo-Ronar.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Marco

My 300mm APO Ronar in shutter from Rodenstock is optimised for 1:20 and should not

covering 8x10 at infinity if I belive the brochure from Rodenstock but it still does and at f 32

I can even shift 2 cm.

Also the 46? on my 480 APO Ronar is very conservativ it covers also quit a bit more!

And my 610mm Apo Nikkor which is also a repro glass has almost no end of covering power!

Hope it helps, Armin

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>With an actual process camera of ours; one would be NUTS to use all the angle of a apo ronar; IF one has a pesky poor original and is shooting high contrast lith materials. One has far greater issues like light falloff; a curved field. Its wiser to use a longer lens; get more constant illumnation. Most all of our process work was/is shot at F22 on apo ronars; of 360, 600 and 890mm focal lengths. I also have a 150mm one too. </P>

 

<p>The 1971 pro graphics arts catalog lists a 600 F9 apo ronar as covering:<BR>24x30 inches a 1:1<BR>20x24 inches a 1:2<BR>15x18 inches a 1:5<BR>14x17 inches a 1:10<br></P>

 

<p>many folks "take/use" the 1:10 data as being roughly the infinity coverage<BR>many folks "take/use" ONE HALF the 1:1 numbers as being the infinity coverage. (thus about 12x15 inches being 1/2 the 1:1 data set)<BR>Unless one has a specific application; "coverage" can vary. it can be boxed in by illumination; or resolution. With a process camera a typical shot is 1:2 or 1:4 and thus balls to the wall resolution is not a real issue at all.<BR></p>

 

<p>With the 1971 book of mine; a 300mm F9 apo ronar covers 12x17 inche at 1:1 and 7x9 inches at 1:10;p thus halfing the 1:1 data set gives about a 6x8.5 inch coverage at infinity; way less than an 8x10.</P>

 

<p>The literature is peppered with errors abbout process lenses; some are gross; the entire column is off. With this error the coverage numbers get screwed up; the 1:5 data I have seen in a 1:2 column.</P>

 

<p>Every blue moon somebody on photo.net gets the wild hair that process camera lenses are some super high resolution lenses. The MAIN design goal of a process lens was/is low distortion; so map panels match up when you make up a giant map. An enlarging lens has usually WAY more distortion. We mucked around with a super 210mm F5.6 schneider componon for a decade on a durst 138s as a pseudo process camera; until we got a real process camera with low distortion apor ronar lenses.</p>

 

<p>Process lenses have been a super cheap source of ULF lenses for over a decade; about the only thing worth beans on an obsolete process camera. This poses/d a problem for our buddy Bob in marketing/sales of new LF lenses since it flooded the market with a cheap source of lenses. For many folks an old process lens makes a dandy ULF lens; even if they were not designed for this game. For dumb contact prints the "coverage" criteria is going to be illumination dropoff; since all one really needs is about 7 line pairs per mm to make a dandy image for a contact print. </p>

 

<p>Coverage numbers for graphic arts lens is mostly taken at working the Fstop; usually F22.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>To the group; compare : Marcos mention of: <i>"I have a copy of "Press and View Camera Technique", by Paul Wahl, Amphoto 1962, which has a chart listing many lenses available at that time, with coverage. This little volume <b>indicates that the 600mm Apo-Ronar in shutter will cover 25x30"</b></i> compared to the 1971 professional graphic arts catalogs claim of :<b>24x30 inches a 1:1</b></P>

 

<p>Gross errors like this are real typical with process lens articles; literature, even actual data sheets too. IN this case somebody wrongly used the 1:1 data for infinity coverage. This is like saying that the lens magically covers a plate with 4 times the surface area!</p>

 

<p>In trade shows with process cameras long ago; coverage was always with 1:1 data; even if not mentioned. One knew that one could only cover a plate 1/4 the size at 1/10. The 1962 book chap must have assumed it was infinity coverage; what an entirely different industry uses.</p>

[pete_andrews10]

The Apo-ronar, in common with most "normal" angle process lenses, has a stated coverage of 20 degrees 1/2 angle. That's a 40 degree cone of light projecting from the back of the lens.

 

In real terms, this means it'll cover a format with a 436 mm diagonal at infinity. BUT, this is using the very tight parameters applied to process work. If we loosen up the spec as regards light fall-off, geometrical distortion and image sharpness, we could expect to add around 20% onto this figure, giving us a coverage of about 520mm, which is not too far away from the 496mm quoted elsewhere.

 

Short of outright vignetting, the coverage will be limited by the image quality you're willing to accept, but 25 x 30 inches coverage? NO WAY! That's a 990mm image circle, which would be stretching even a true wide-angle lens of only 600mm focal length. Come on, a 110 degree angle of view from a process lens? Or could this be the legendary believed-lost Rodenstock design, the Apo-Ronar XXL?

[william_whitaker1]

I have the 600mm Apo-Ronar in the Compound #5 and used it on 14x17 when I was using that format. Coverage was not an issue, but then I don't typically use a lot of movements anyway. It's a nice lens.

 

~Will