MultiCoated Filters on Uncoated Lenses

With the new multicoated filters now on the market ,i'd like to know if anyone here has used one with any uncoated lens ?Lets say a Uncoated 1920s Dagor or even maybe a Verito ? I just wondering how an multicoated lens filter will impact an uncoated lens with color response and contrast ?Do i see a new door opening or is it just wishful thinking ?Cooke xv as the used by Adams was single coated .So has anybody done it ?I understand they are expensive but if they increase contrast or improve color response for color film on uncoated lens , that means price hike on uncoated lenses ! Zeiss is one of the manufactures .

A multicoated filter will not "improve" the lens - compared to no filter at all, you'll always lose some contrast, sharpness and resolution (unless you gain some by virtue of the filter being a monochromatic black-and-white filter - but that is no matter of coating and has the known drawbacks of an unnatural colour response). But a multicoated filter is a improvement over single coated or uncoated filters - even more so on a uncoated lens, where there-and-back reflection between lens and filter can create ghost images and reduce contrast significantly.

In a nutshell: Use multicoated filters to limit the contrast loss whenever you need filters - and avoid filters whenever you don't need them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ederphoto

With the new multicoated filters now on the market ,i'd like to know if anyone here has used one with any uncoated lens ?Lets say a Uncoated 1920s Dagor or even maybe a Verito ? I just wondering how an multicoated lens filter will impact an uncoated lens with color response and contrast ?Do i see a new door opening or is it just wishful thinking ?Cooke xv as the used by Adams was single coated .So has anybody done it ?I understand they are expensive but if they increase contrast or improve color response for color film on uncoated lens , that means price hike on uncoated lenses ! Zeiss is one of the manufactures .

---

Wishful thinking. A proper lens shade will get you much, much farther.

A multicoated filter will be just slightly more invisible than a normal filter. It's not going to affect internal reflections between pieces of uncoated glass, because it's not in that spot.

Old lenses used fewer glass-air interfaces than modern ones, so fancy coatings were not that critical. more separated chunks of glass == more reflections;

There are modern coated equivalents of most old expensive lenses. You can get a veritar instead of a verito. You can get a multicoated cooke ps945 instead of a P&S visual quality or bi-quality. Single coated tessars are on most 1950's cameras that are otherwise similar to pre-war tessars. Look for Kodak "lumenised" as a coating on commercial ektars and optars and portrait lenses. Shutters aside, you can pay a lot more for the ancient lenses (except for the tessars and projector lenses which are just not rare enough to be expensive). Modern (1950's-1980's), you are paying for a quality shutter in many cases (or not paying for it because it's an unknown risk at the time of purchase). Contemporary lenses, you are paying for the newness and shutter as much as the glass sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp498

Old lenses used fewer glass-air interfaces than modern ones, so fancy coatings were not that critical. more separated chunks of glass == more reflections;

---

Really ? Some had more, I'm thinking first of my Eurynar which is a dialyte but I have others with more air /glass interfaces than most modern LF lenses.

Of course you're right that Tessars and particularly Dagors are less prone to flare, and the post WWII 203mm f7.7 Ektar (a dialyte) came into it's own because of its coatings.

Something thats never really looked at is the quality and effectiveness of differing early coatings (pre-Multi coating), there's huge variations. Perhaps that's a subject for a different thread.

Ian