Apo-Ronar 420 MC

[nick_rowan]

Does anyone know if Rodenstock ever made a "regular" non-DB Apo-Ronar lens in

a focal length of 420mm MULTICOATED?

 

Also does anyone know exactly how many years or which years Rodenstock made

its Apo-Ronar lenses with MULTICOATING?

 

I have already called Bob Solomon at Rodenstock and he didn't know.

 

Thanks.

 

Nick Rowan

 

Nick Rowan

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Nick

 

Ask Rodenstock directly under:http://www.rodenstockoptics.com/en/homefr3.html

They will tell you!

[bob_salomon]

In the 1982 brochure from Rodenstock the pictured Apo Ronar

lenses are not marked MC or multi coated. In the latest brochure

they are marked MC.

 

In both brochures the 420 is offered.

 

No place in any price list or brochure from Rodenstock since

1972 is MC or multi coated mentioned for the Apo Ronar series.

 

Why do you ask?

[matt_kime]

you know what they say about assumptions, but I'm going to go ahead and make one anyway....

 

any apochromatic lens should also be multicoated.

 

there's a fairly large difference between coated and non coated lenses, at least when it comes to flairing. to make a lens out of apochromatic glass (which reduces refraction of light into separated colors) but not to MC it, doesn't make sense.

 

ok, now I'm waiting to be corrected...

[bob_salomon]

"any apochromatic lens should also be multicoated."

 

Apochromatic process lenses have been made far longer then

multi coatings.

 

These lenses were designed for making seps and copies in

graphic arts process cameras. These cameras usually only

have light on the copy board. The rest of the camera is in a very

dark area. Usually a totally dark room except for the light on the

copy. In addition these lenses were frequently placed in hoods

that also shielded the lens from stray light. In fact in the USAF

our process camera (Robertson) had the film back in a different

room then the camera. The camera was actually built in to the

wall.

[matt_kime]

thanks for the info bob.

 

but...

 

as far as I know, the main difference between a process lens and a typical large format lens is the shutter. process lenses don't have a shutter in them. some can have one added. (i'm guessing there are different choices made as the issue of coverage is different, etc) i'm confused as to why you brought up the issue of process vs. LF lens. perhaps the history of process lens is different than that of regular LF lenses. at least the history schneider symmar lens brought multicoating and then apochromatic glass.

[kelly_flanigan1]

WE bought 3 APO Ronars in 1979; none are multicoated...They are the 360,600 and 890mm lenses.....They are in barrel; and used on a process camera where lighting is extremely well controlled...For our usage multicoating would be totaly worthless; akin to gold plating ones garden hose connectors..<BR><BR>Kelly

[bob_salomon]

Apo Ronar, Apg Gtapagon, Apo Geragon, Apo Artar, G Claron are

all process lenses. If they are in or out of shutter they are still

process lenses. If you use a process camera to shoot copies

you usually have them without shutter. If you use a view camera

to shoot copies you usually need them in shutter.

 

None were designed for 3 dimensionsl scenes from 1:5 to

infinity and none will perform as well for that purpose.

 

None were designed for 3 dimensional macro work and none

will perform as well as lenses designed for that use.

 

A process lens will give a very useable result when used away

from its design range but other designs will be much better.

 

Also process lenses are designed to be used at f22 only from

600 down and f32 only longer then 600. Non process lenses are

designed to perform over a wider range then one stop.

 

 

 

:"as far as I know, the main difference between a process lens

and a typical large format lens is the shutter. process lenses

don't have a shutter in them."

[kelly_flanigan1]

-- Bob ;

Our Process camera's lenses are Apo Ronars because <b>they have very little distortion</b>; which is required for a mapping camera so that adjacent maps or drawings will line up correctly......... The camera uses them from 1:1 to about 1:10 ratios; and it is extremely sharp....dinky type 1/32" high on 4' by 6' maps gets captured on the 12x18 or 18x24 Kodalith negatives..........The lighting (exposure)is by arc lamp.....<BR><BR>Many of these huge process cameras have been obsoleted by scan and print engineering copiers; thus alot of surplus APO lenses are on the market...Used in their intended range they are great lenses... Our three lenses cost about 1/7 of 30k cost of the process camera in 1979...Each lens was measured for focal length by the factory and also the camera's factory tech; who spends several days aligning the system......Focusing the camera is by setting the lens board; & copy boards to 0.001 inch using the dial indicators....The rail settings are from a computer program...The camera is 23.5 feet long; and is in two rooms....<BR><BR>We have used it very little to photograph 3D items; but the success was very good Kelly

[bob_salomon]

We used rectification printers and nothched paper so all

distortions in the prints from stretching during drying. Prints were

then feather edged so they didn't have a ridge where they joined.

 

We then did a strip map of a path from Shaw AFB in SC to

Moses Lake Naval Air Station in WA. The images were shot on

5" roll from the nose camera of a RF 101 Voodoo and prints

were 10x10 enlargements.

 

The map wrapped several times around the lab hallway.

 

We also did the same when we shot Cuba during the missle

crises to make montages but these were done from both RB 66

and RF 101s so some were 9x9" strobe night shots.

 

BTW,

 

I never said that the lenses were anything other then great for flat

field copy work. They just aren't as good as other lenses at 3

dimensional work at any ratio.

[matt_kime]

<p><a href="http://www.camerareview.com/templates/reviews_lens.cfm?lens_id=290">http://www.camerareview.com/templates/reviews_lens.cfm?lens_id=290</a></p>

 

<p>-states that distortion at infinity on APO Ronar lenses is approximately the same as the APO Sironar or APO Symmar.</p>

 

<p>-all APO Ronars originally mounted on shutters are multicoated.</p>

 

<p>I suspect the APO ronars are an exception to the process lens rules as discussed in posts above.</p>

 

<p>thanks for all the good info.</p>

[bob_salomon]

"-states that distortion at infinity on APO Ronar lenses is

approximately the same as the APO Sironar or APO Symmar."

 

His statements also include inaccuracies. For instance

Rodeanstock digital lenses are available in focal lengths longer

then he states. They are available up to 180mm.

 

Why would you assume his information is the final word?

 

Distortion is one aspect of the final quality.

 

MTF, resolution, color performance, contrast, etc are all

contributing to the final result. Distortion is simply one factor. And

the distortion and other performance specs of the Apo Sironar S

are higher then the published ones for the Apo Sironar N and

Apo Symmar so his conclusion is murky at best.

 

An Apo Ronar simply won't equal the others at infinity.

 

They will be smaller, lighter and less expensive however.

 

The real question is what matters most to the specific user/

performance - size - weight - cost - filter size

 

If it is performance at the cost of everthing else the process lens

just won't make the same quality image.

 

But to obtain that quality you need a camera the lens can fit. A

camera that can support the weight, The dedication to carry the

weight, buy the large filters, and be willing and able to buy the

lens.

 

But in terms of pure performance at infinity, 1:20, 1:10, 1:5 of 3

dimensional objects the process lens will not equal the others.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bob; I agree the the Apo Ronar is best at 1:1; and performance drops from that ratio....<BR><BR>But what specific quality of a lens makes it better or worse for 3D? Re your statement <i> "But in terms of pure performance at infinity, 1:20, 1:10, 1:5 of 3 dimensional objects the process lens will not equal the others." </i><BR><BR>Bob; are you talking about the quality of the out of focus areas ie <b> Bokeh ?</b> <BR><BR>I have numberous texts that go into specific reasons why lenses are designed; ie symetrical lenses for copy machines etc...But I do not remember reading that certain lenses are not good for 3D; accept maybe perhaps with microscope objectives.......<BR><br> Does anyone have a link or photo to post qualifiying this "bad" rendering of 3D objects when using these big lenses? <BR><BR>The 35mm crowd and 2 1/4 crowd have run amuck with the Bokeh issue.....I have not seen very much stuff on bad 3D with big lenses; but have not really searched much yet......<BR><BR>30 years ago I saw beautifull closeup work of perfume bottles made with a 4x5 and 8x10 using a 210mm F5.6 Schneider Componon; which was made for an enlarger; ie close copy ratios..1:2, 1:5 etc.......He used the Componon instead of his Ektar in shutter; because the Ektar was corrected for infinity to mid ranges; and not close up...

[bob_salomon]

Kelley.

 

Shoot comparisons like many major catalog houses have. The

in focus areas are not as good. Contrast is lower - they don't

look as sharp. That has nothing tp do with out of focus areas.

 

The spread of sharpness is not as even acroess the frame. The

use of f22 only is more restrictive. Focusing and viewing is quite

a bit more difficult and the lack of coverage makes it very

restrictive for product shooters or landscape shooters capable of

direct rather then indirect movements or large base tilt

movements.

 

The only advantages - size, weight, filter size, cost.

 

The drwback - lesser quality results.

 

Rent one of each Apo Ronar and Apo Sironar S and see for

yourself.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bob; The Apo-Ronar versus Apo Sirinar-S is a bit different issue..The Sirinar-S has usually 2 more elements which give it alot more field coverage...Also it uses the ED glass to make it a better APO lens...........This cuts the color fringing alot more; and is required much more for color work than B & W work..........<b>I wonder if Nicks application is Color or Black and White? </b><br><br>The Apo-Ronar is a 4 element lens and the Apo Sironar-N is a 6 element lens; the Apo Sironar-S is 6 elements too...The maximum field coverage is about 48 / 72 /75 degrees...The S model uses ED glass; which greatly reduces the colour fringing....Some bigger Apo Ronars are 6 elements; such as the 1000mm and 1200mm and were made just for map making...(Maybe Sironars lurking with APO- Ronar labels!!!!)......(Note Bob most all of my usage of the APO-Ronars have been for B & W work; so for color and wide coverage the S design is great ) <BR><BR>The Rodenstock Apo- Ronar literature gives their MTFs at the optimized lenses ratio of 1:1 and also 1:20 . <BR><BR>The Rodenstock exact quote from their spec says: <i>"While it is computed for 1:1, its imaging quality is largely maintained even with considerable enlargements or reductions. This is confirmed by the MTF curves of the APO-RONAR for the 1:1 and 1:20 ratios. In both cases the achieved contrast transfer is close to the theoretical limits of defraction."</i><BR><BR>I own a 360, 600, & 890mm Apo Ronars; hey Bob did you goof up the data sheets or has my 890mm been dropped from the lineup????<BR><BR>My experiences using the Apo Ronars in Black & White has been fantastic; but I know how as an Optical Engineer to get more out of a lenses than the average goof....For B & W ; I use not so much angle of the lens; and use a yellow filter to cut down alot of the very very small color fringing.........This delivers an almost defraction limited lens.........Also my circa 1979 lenses are not multicoated; I use/build big hoods/shades to cut off bad glare......On the Process cameras there is gobs of contrast with the controlled lighting; If Nick wants to use one outdoors; a multicoated lens would be much better to use.....<IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-221.jpg"><IMG SRC="http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-222.jpg">

[bob_salomon]

""While it is computed for 1:1, its imaging quality is largely

maintained even with considerable enlargements or reductions.

This is confirmed by the MTF curves of the APO-RONAR for the

1:1 and 1:20 ratios. In both cases the achieved contrast transfer

is close to the theoretical limits of defraction.""

 

They also state that the eveness of coverage of the wide angle

lenses is unsurpassed.

 

This did not mean a center filter was not needed or that it was

better.

 

Same as your statement has a qualifier in it. :is largely

maintained? actually says that it is not as good at infinity.

 

"I own a 360, 600, & 890mm Apo Ronars; hey Bob did you goof

up the data sheets or has my 890mm been dropped from the

lineup????"

 

You can own up to the 1200mm Apo Ronar. Larger then 480 will

not fit into a shutter and were not sold as photogrphic lenses.

They were sold by process camera manufacturers and graphic

arts supply onlt.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Hi Bob; the statement; <i>"is largely maintained"</i> is not mine but from Rodenstocks datasheet...<BR><BR>The apo Ronar is almost diffraction limited for the first 25 degrees; at 1:1 and 1:20 from the Rodenstock MTF curves...On our Acti Process camera we like to use this central area for best results....This center sharpness results is typical of 4 element lenses; going way back to Dr. Paul Rudolph's "Eagle eye Zeiss Tessar" 100 years ago..<BR><BR>In this 0 to 25 degree range; the Apo-Ronar and other lenses mentioned above are equal in performance at the 1:1 to 1:20 ratios..the MTF curves show this....<BR><BR>Bob do you have any access to MTF curves of the Apo-Ronars <b>at infinity </b>??? If so please post them or email me ....This is using the Ronar not where it was designed to be used..<br>Regards Kelly

[bob_salomon]

Sorry. We only have curves for the deasigned application.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Bob; thanks for the reply.....<BR><BR>Infinity MTF curves probably exist in an engineers desk deep in the optics lab in Germany...We engineers are interested also in how stuff works away from the designed/marketing region of products......This probably drives you Marketing guys nuts that questions get asked like this; but its in our souls as Engineers.....<br><br> In High school I disconnected the spark plugs on a Plymouth V-8 318 cid engine; and had it running on only one cylinder.....it required 2 plugs being connected to the wires to start the car.......I'm not sure my dad was really impressed......

[bob_salomon]

Kelley,

 

First Rodenstock lenses are now part of Linos. Rodenstock sold

the lens division to concentrate on eyewear, opthlomogical

equipment, non surface conyact measurement technology, etc.

Secondly the Apo Ronar was designed many deacdes ago by

people no longer with the lens company, Linos.

Lastly they make lots of lenses for specific purposes.

For 1:1 and near 1:1 of 3 dimensional objects the Apo Macro

series is the superior optic and curves exist for them. They are

terrible at infinity, not recommended for infinity and curves do not

exist at infinity.

Apo Ronars are process lenses that are out of production. They

are current as long as stocks still exist.

 

This is because the market they were built for - graphic arts - is

now done digitally. They market for process lenses no longer

exists. The design of these lenses was to copy flat art at near

1:1. At f22 for lenses shorter then 600 mm.

 

Like an Apo Macro at infinity they produce a useable image.

 

But that image is inferior to the same image produced by a lens

like the Apo S from 1:5 to 00.

 

Conversely the S will not equal the Apo Ronar on flat art, The Apo

macro at close ranges and none of them will equal an Apo

Digital on digital sensors.

 

The Apo Ronar had its place but its design was not as a general

purpose lens and the factories do not release curves for lenses

outside their design criteria.

[nick_rowan]

Thanks to all you responded, especially to Bob Salomon. I have a few follow-up

questions to what you, Bob, have written.

 

You wrote that the Apo-Ronar lens "not designed for 3 dimensional scenes from

1:5 to infinity and will not perform as well (as a Sironar S lens) for that

purpose".

 

Can you please explain to me in more detail EXACTLY HOW the Apo-Ronar will NOT

perform as well as the Sironar when being used to photograph 3-dimensional

objects? I mean, how will its "deficiency" under these shooting conditions be

borne out? Will the pictures be less sharp for instance? Aross the entire frame

or just at the edges? Poorer resolution? Will the performance of an Apo-Ronar

also really be NOTICEABLY poorer at say f/32 and f/45 than at f/22 as you

insist? And finally and most importantly, will the pictures of 3-d objects taken

with an Apo-Ronar and a Sironar LOOK DIFFERENT, look less "three-dimensional"

and "flatter" with the "flat field" lens than with the general purpose Plasmat

design, such that say portraits taken with a flat-field lens will look "bad" or

"strange", or "wrong" etc? Less depth of field? Please and describe and

characterize exactly how this above difference would be manifested

photographically?

 

I only ask this because for the longest time I have been unsatisfied with the

sharpness of my Sironar S and N lenses when used to photograph people

half-figure at relatively close distances of about 4 or feet away. For some time

I have entertained the possibility that a process lens, which is designed to excell

and be sharper at close distances than say a Sironar, might provide greater

sharpness. I shoot exclusively black-and-white 4x5 and 8x10 negative film, and

am making 24x enlargements from the 4x5 (and to a lesser extent, 12x ones

from the 8x10), so I need all the sharpness I can possibly extract, particulary

from the 4x5.

 

Alot of people have told me that they use the Apo-Ronar for shooting

infinity-based subjects in the field, such as for landscapes. In fact your own

Rodenstock literature of not more than 5 years ago (the copy of which

unfortunately I do not have before me at the moment, but which I will get)

exlicitly states in its description of the Apo-Ronar that this lens may outperform

a telephoto design in the field or something to that effect, suggesting that

Rodenstock itself considers the Apo-Ronar a lens suitable for phtographing

3-dimensional objects in the field.

 

I have also had people tell me that the Apo-Artar will be "too sharp" for

photographing people, turning them into "medical textbook examples", implying

that the Artar lens would be THE SHARPEST lens, even at portrait setting

shooting distances, and thus even sharper than say a Sironar S.

 

For that reason I now have in my possession several "late vintage" Schneider

Apo-Artar lenses, bought to hopefully achieve such superior effects. But none

of them are multi-coated, and I am partial to multi-coating for its greater

contrast and "punch" than single-coating (contrary to what some might say, I DO

see a difference between the two, between pictures taken with single and

multicoated lenses, even though sometimes the difference is slight), and hence,

that is why I was inquiring about the Apo-Ronar, which in its late stages of

production was multicoated.

 

Your reply to any or all of this would be most appreciated.

 

Thanks.

[bob_salomon]

Nick,

 

I am happy to mail you the detailed specs if you are in the U.S. but have a sick

grandchild at the minute and simply don't have the time to write all these

answers. All you cqan call me at 800 735 4373 and I will be happy to answer

all questions and you can post my response to you.

[dizzy deasy]

about a gazillion years ago I used to work in a specialty photographic lab that had a huge Robertson copy camera that Kelly Flanagan mentions in one of the posts above. One morning as I was working with it, I noticed an interesting reflection in the wall-sized moving copy glass,and took a shot on a medium format Kowa 6. This captured a bit of the huge F-stop scale and lens. It's at http://www.deasy.com/dreams/big_camera.htm .

The film back was also a room. I spent quite a bit of time as a relatively small person walking back and forth in a big camera.

 

Ed Deasy

http://deasy.com ed@deasy.com