Rodenstock APO-RONAR 240mm F9 Excellent Like New on eBay
If anyone is looking for a Rodenstock f9.0 240mm Apo Ronar lens there is a late (latest?) model available on eBay. It is listed as Excellent Like New. This should be a MC lens and is Rodenstock's equivalent to the Schnieder Apo Artar f9.0 240mm lens. These tend to be relatively small and light and are known for excellent performance, not only as close-up (process) lenses but also at infinity. Rodenstock is supposed to have shimmed these lenses to perform better at infinity than the barrel mounted versions of the lens. The lens does not have the coverage of the Fujinon A f9.0 240mm lens.
Here is the link:
Last edited by naturephoto1; 10-19-2006 at 09:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Thanks for the hint, I was on the market for 240/250mm long lens recently (though postponed the issue in a few months due to budget reasons), APO-Ronra 240mm was on my list as one of possible options.
However, the starting price in that auction seems to be too high IMHO...
Besides, few days ago I was out for shooting session in the woods and the trouble of focusing with even f/5.6 (150mm/5.6) was a real pain in my eyes.
Even in bright daylight it can be quite dark in the woods so that even on my Satinsnow GG (in my Shen) I was hurting my eyes painfully trying to focus at f/5.6. Should I mention the torture of 90mm/6.8 focusing... ? Haven't yet developed the sheets, but suspect focusing issues with these shoots (just wasn't able to confirm a good focusing visually on the GG due to the dim image).
That pretty much neglected any lens slower then f6.xx in my lineup...
(now the only choice for 240/250mm lens is Fujinon 250mm/6.3)..
For the latest of these lenses (notice the blue ring around the lens) you would expect the price to be higher especially in this condition. There is a premium that may be paid for such a recent lens. I paid $409 for a slightly older Rodenstock f9.0 240mm MC Apo Ronar in mint condition in February, but the lens is a bit older than this one (and lacks the blue ring). Additionally MC versions of the Rodenstock Apo Ronars are more rare and sell for more than their uncoated and single coated versions. Many find that it is not as difficult to focus f9.0 lenses in longer focal lengths in lower light conditions as it is to focus wild angle lenses under the same conditions.
Also, you may have to wait for your eyes to adjust to the dim light so that you can see better for focusing. In low lighting conditions that can take 20 minutes or more. So don't expect to be able to see that well on a ground glass with an f5.6 or even an f4.5 lens until your eyes adjust to the lower light.
Additionally, for lower lighting conditions if you are close enough to the subject, some photographers resort to the usage of a flashlight or headlamp for lighting their subject to aid in focusing.
Last edited by naturephoto1; 10-20-2006 at 08:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Additional thoughts
Apparently you're right regarding this Ronar, I indeed refered to th older version.
I'm aware about the common opinion of long lenses posing less issue in small aperture focusing-wise and I was close to purchase f/9 240mm lens some time ago, however now I see that despite of that, I can see me suffering shooting with slow lenses in the environment I used to work.
I'm sure it is not the issue of getting my eyes adjusted to the low ambient lighting - I was there several hours (3-4 hours) and my eyes definitely adjusted to that. Moreover, not being very experienced yet in LF, I used to spend more time under focusing cloth trying to achieve the desired composition and focus then many other, more experienced shooters, so that my eyes have even better chance to adjust to the existing lighting conditions.
In that particular case, I was barely being able to apply movements I wanted because noting their subtle effect on focusing over the entire composition was next to impossible due to dim GG image.
The difference in GG brightness between 90mm/6.8 and 150mm/5.6 was noticeable indeed thus allowing somewhat more comfortable focusing with latter one, however even with this one it wasn't up to the level that wouldn't put a real strain on my eyes, I would define 1500mm/5.6 GG brightness in such situation as probably acceptable, but not more.
As to the focusing question. Be aware that many have more problems in focusing wide angle lenses on a screen than normal or longer lenses. This applies to working on 35mm and medium format SLRs as well as working on a ground glass of a LF camera. Don't forget, the subject matter is smaller with these lenses than longer lenses and as such, it will be more difficult to focus.
As I mentioned, you may wish to use a flashlight in these dim light conditions. Even if the nearest part of the image can be lit by the flashlight, you can at least focus on the nearest part of the image and work from there. In low light conditions you will have a tougher time in using tilts and swings as well because the GG is dark. But in these conditions if you are relatively close to the subject you will find that you frequently have an infinite number of planes and using front or rear tilt (or swing) will not work in these conditions anyway. Remember that to use tilts (or swing) for the purpose of maintaining focus it is used for a single plane. In these instances, you will be relying much more heavily on lens aperture for depth of field.
In such cases, you will be more likely to have to rely on using a hyperfocal focus. There are many ways of doing this including tables. For me, with my Linhof Technikardan 45S there are mm markings on the back of the rail for focusing. Linhof included a card (I laminated a copy to take into the field) with the camera for focus and focus correction and the required apertures to maintain sharp (acceptable) focus at certain distances (magnification ratios). You then need to know the near and far subject distances (mm on the focusing rail) to calculate the difference in mm of the 2 focusing points. By knowing the difference in the focusing points with the Linhof card, I know how much I need to move the rear camera standard [(film plane) in this case] to maintain a hyperfocal distance of near to far as well as the aperture required. You set the aperture accordingly as indicated on the card, though I may still stop down from that.
You will use the rise and fall and shift of the camera for the purpose primarily of fine tuning the position of the camera for the purpose of improving the composition so that you do not have to move the tripod and camera.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks RIch once again.
Yes, you're correct reagrding the issue of utilizing movements to attain deep focusing with near subjects - I noticed once moving close to certain subject (an interesting giant tree growing up through the hard rock) trying to have it captured from low angled position to deliberately exagerrate the proportions. No matter how hard I was sweating under the dark cloth trying to achieve deep focusing by tilting/swinging - I wasn't able to do that (perhaps also due to lack of vast experience in that yet) and finally had to give up and close down the aperture severily and prey it will salvage the DOF. There indeed were large number of focusing planes involved and as I analyze now it was unlikely be possible to do that by movements at all.
Now that you mentioned hyperfocal technique it sounds to be a great idea having those tables handy at field or perhaps some DOF calculator (for zero angeled movements, of course) in form of written tables per focal length and aperture...