Multicoated, vs. Single Coated Enlarging Lens?

[neil poulsen]

I've always used single-coated enlarging lenses to enlarge 4x5. I used a single-coated, Calumet branded 150mm Componon S for a long time, and more recently, I've been using a single-coated 180mm Rodagon.

Does one tend to see any kind of a difference enlarging with a multicoated, versus a single-coated lens?

[Luis-F-S]

No I doubt you’ll see any

[Drew Wiley]

In principle, perhaps a tiny difference, but only if the MC lens is also of superior optical performance. That will be the case with later more expensive Apo varieties. But it's not something I'd worry about. The regular 180 Rodagon is a superb lens for 4x5 usage, and one of my favorites, and already a distinct improvement over the 150 Componon S, which certainly wasn't shabby, but itself a decent workhorse. To upstage it, you'd need to acquire a 150 Apo Rodagon N, which will have slightly higher contrast than the 180, but at the penalty of some potential illumination falloff with most colorheads. I use both; but the difference is subtle, and nothing to fret over. Frankly, I use the 150 Apo R mainly for 6x9 negs, and the 180 R mainly for 4x5.

[neil poulsen]

The comparison that I'm making is between the older 180mm Apo Rodagon single-coated lens, versus a 180mm Nikon El Nikkor A multi-coated lens.

[Drew Wiley]

The older 180 Apo Rodagon was a process lens not equal to the 180 regular Rodagon for enlarging purposes per Bob S. on past threads. El Nikkors, with a few exceptions, are outstanding enlarging lenses; but the whole SC vs MC issue is largely irrelevant to that. If you find one at a tempting price, why not? But don't expect a detectable boost in microtonal contrast like with a 150 Apo Rodagon N.

These minor distinctions are more important to me in color rather than black and white printing, since it's one way to make minor tweaks in color print contrast without resorting to supplementary masking or switching RA4 papers. Sometimes for me in color, it's too much contrast which is the issue, so I often actually prefer single-coated lenses when working with large format color film. Smaller formats, on the other hand, need higher magnifications ratios, so are often better served with the highest contrast enlarging lenses when working in color. But each image is really it's own problem, so I keep a selection of enlarging lenses on hand, including high-end Apo Nikkor process lenses.

[neil poulsen]

Drew, Thanks for the information. Of course, black and white versus color is all too relevant. My intention is to enlarge only black and white. Whereas, MC vs SC differences likely relate more to the latter, versus the former.

One comment, I believe the older 180mm Apo Rodagon was designed as an enlarging lens for the 4x5 format. The 240mm, 300mm, and 360mm Apo Rodagons were process lenses that were improvements on the Apo Ronar design. They were wider field, and their optimum aperture was f16, versus the typical f22. I have the 240mm, and it's excellent for enlarging 8x10. All three focal lengths are described as a group in the same Rodenstock literature. (I have a copy.) That literature does not include the 180mm Apo Rodagon.

[Luis-F-S]

Neil you are correct on the enlarging lens. I have both the Apo 180 and 240 like yours also the 180 Rodagon and don’t see any difference between it and the Apo lens in B&W enlargements

[neil poulsen]

Thank you Luis, that's very helpful. I knew you had the 180mm; but, I didn't realize you also had the 240mm.

[Drew Wiley]

There are certain nuances in performance which might not apply in this case. For instance, the regular 180 Rodagon apparently excels in 5x7 performance; and having tested that claim, I concur. But the shortest Apo process lens I have in my set is a 240 Apo Nikkor, which I use for quite a range of things, including for 8x10 film enlargements sometimes (though I prefer a 305 or 360 for that format). It would be nice to find a sample of the less common 180/f9 Apo Nikkor; but the difference in performance from my more ordinary 180/5.6 Rodagon would hardly warrant the investment at this point in my life. Certainly the public would never notice any difference in the prints themselves.

[John Layton]

to hell with the public Drew. If you would notice the difference...even at this point in your life - then you deserve to see this before you take your dirt nap...know what I'm saying?

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, these little nuances do matter to me, and all add up somehow into something special in the print. Otherwise, I wouldn't own so many darn enlarging lenses. But I also have multiple enlargers, each with its own special personality, so there's that too.

[Paul Ron]

many people regard lens coatings like cheese on pizza... more isnt any better.

[Jim Jones]

many people regard lens coatings like cheese on pizza... more isnt any better.

More cheese on pizza IS more important than multi-coating on enlarging lenses!

[Paul Ron]

hahahaha and you said it brudah!

[ic-racer]

Single coated enlarging lenses have probably not been manufactured for 50 or so years. What are you going to compare it to to see if the coating affects the image without any other confounding factors?

[Drew Wiley]

Makes no difference. Such lenses reached their peak performance in that general era anyway. There isn't much incentive to go beyond that today, in terms of enlarging applications per se.
Even production of the Rolls Royce series, namely, Apo El Nikkors, ended, but subsequently took root anew in fashion of specialized machine optics of fixed aperture and focal distance.
Lots of single-coated enlarging lenses remained on sale well after the 70's, even high-quality ones. A lot were made to begin with, and then demand tapered off.

Pizzas, however? Well, one of the local outfits got named best pizza in the country last year. But I still prefer homemade. You folks who hang out at Round Table or Straw Hat probably just do so for the biodiesel grease you can wring out of any leftovers.

[xkaes]

With the emergence of digital, who still makes enlarging lenses, and who has stopped?

Just curious.

I know Minolta and Yashica/Tomioka have stopped.

[Drew Wiley]

Rodenstock still apparently makes at least some of them. But such a great number are still readily available at bargain pricing, that what profit incentive would there now be? At least these don't need shutters, like view camera lenses do, so could hypothetically be put back into production anytime.

I don't think companies like Minolta or Yashica were ever involved with LF enlarging lenses. All the "big four" were: Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon,
plus other companies prior. But many process lenses work too, often better than dedicated enlarging lenses themselves.

[LabRat]

Enlarging lenses sorta work in reverse of shooting lenses, in the way of when shooting, one can be shooting a super bright scene, then projecting into a darkened chamber... But in enlarging, the neg is super bright, then projected out to the darkness... So the lens in either case has a "hot" side of light that can cause flare or fog in the right conditions...

I keep different era enlarging lenses for different looks or type of negs that might need higher or lower contrast, to soften hard negs with an uncoated old lens, hard/brittle rendition lens for flat /dull negs, or just for a different "vibe" giving a neg an "older world" look...

Generally, clean/modern single coated can be very contrasty, but older non coated will be much flatter, but extended mid-tones...

Multi coated should be lower in flare, but I expect a very cold contrast effect IMHO...

Steve K

[xkaes]

The only enlarging lenses that I recall that advertised that they were "multi-coated" were the Fuji EX series -- with EBC coating. They had to do SOMETHING to try to separate themselves from the pack. And I think 135mm was Fuji's longest.

Any others?

[Bob Salomon]

The only enlarging lenses that I recall that advertised that they were "multi-coated" were the Fuji EX series -- with EBC coating. They had to do SOMETHING to try to separate themselves from the pack. And I think 135mm was Fuji's longest.

Any others?

All Apo Rodagon N lenses were multi coated and all of the advertising and literature stated prominently that they were MC.

[Michael R]

I don’t care what anyone says. Domino’s is still the best pizza, multi-coated or not.


Makes no difference. Such lenses reached their peak performance in that general era anyway. There isn't much incentive to go beyond that today, in terms of enlarging applications per se.
Even production of the Rolls Royce series, namely, Apo El Nikkors, ended, but subsequently took root anew in fashion of specialized machine optics of fixed aperture and focal distance.
Lots of single-coated enlarging lenses remained on sale well after the 70's, even high-quality ones. A lot were made to begin with, and then demand tapered off.

Pizzas, however? Well, one of the local outfits got named best pizza in the country last year. But I still prefer homemade. You folks who hang out at Round Table or Straw Hat probably just do so for the biodiesel grease you can wring out of any leftovers.

[John Layton]

Yeah I also make a pretty decent pizza...I like 'em loaded - first anointing the stretched crust with a bit of tomato paste, then thick slices of mozzarella interspersed with fontina, then onto sautéed red peppers and mushrooms and carmellized onions - then plops of hand squeezed (to drain slightly) san marzano tomatoes (from a can), then some Kalamata olives, maybe some pepperoni or sweet (or hot) italian sausage, and/or a few anchovies - then a generous amount of hand-rubbed oregano, topped off with a long mouli-twist of pecorino romano cheese, with perhaps a drizzle of olive oil...

Then again, there are times when I feel a bit of nostalgia for those thin, limp, drippingly greasy slices we'd get at our local skating rink as kids - with the schmear of acidic tomato paste so hot that the roofs of our mouths would start to peel away within just a few bites - oh yeah!

Oh....jeez...where was I here - lens coatings? (ha! almost said "lens toppings!" :rolleyes:)

[Drew Wiley]

I think everyone is confusing lens coatings with lens cements, and which greasy pizza goo does the best job of that, and how long it takes in the pizza oven to get the right amount of curing.

[Daniel.E]

I've been thinking about the whole multicoated vs single coated for awhile. There's something that is bothering me, hopefully it doesn't sound dumb, but if it does please help me out to understand it!!
Can you tell if the lens is multicoated just by looking at the glass? Say, if I was to show you 4 different lenses, could you tell which ones are multicoated and single coated just by looking at the reflection?

How about these lenses? Could you point out which one is which?

234395

[xkaes]

Sometimes it's EZ to tell, sometimes not. It depends on the lens. The thing is there is no legal definition of "multi-coating". Minolta put the first multi-layered coating on a Japanese lens in 1958. They called it "Achromatic coating". It was TWO layers of magnesium fluoride deposited in different thicknesses to radically reduce glare and flare. If you look at the lens, it looks single coated, but there are TWO layers -- so it is MULTI-COATED.

But Minolta's first "Achromatic coated" lens did not have every surface of every lens element so coated. And today, the same is true. A lens might be "multi-coated", but only have multiple layers of coating on one or two or three surfaces. In short, if a lens does not LOOK multi-coated, doesn't mean it isn't.

Still, on many lenses it is easy to see that it's multi-coated, by seeing different colors on different lens elements. But that is no guarantee, either. It's possible that a given lens has one amber colored coating on one element, and a magenta colored coating on another. They may all be single coatings, but they are different. Does that make it "multi-coated"?

So in order to answer your question, you first have to define "multi-coating" -- not very easy.

Coatings -- of whatever type -- are only applied to the surfaces of lens elements where it will make a difference. There are lots of multi-coated lenses that only have a little multi-coating -- that's all they need.

[Daniel.E]

Thank you! That makes a lot of sense, I’m glad I asked!!

[MartinP]

The only enlarging lenses that I recall that advertised that they were "multi-coated" were the Fuji EX series -- with EBC coating. They had to do SOMETHING to try to separate themselves from the pack. And I think 135mm was Fuji's longest.

Any others?

Coincidentally, my Fujinon EX 90mm f5,6 makes noticeably more attractive images (to me) than my Componon-S. I will have to compare it with the 150mm Rodagon (at the same enlargement size) one of these days.

[xkaes]

The Fujinon EX 90 is a 6/6 design while the Componon-S are 6/4 optics. Perhaps that makes a difference.

[Drew Wiley]

I wouldn't read too much into that. Fuji EX was just a slightly more modern design in general. Rodenstock was also ahead of Schneider during that same general era or decade, whatever.

[John Layton]

A good lens designer will tailor lens coatings (multi or otherwise) to integrate with and support the design parameters of a given lens. In other words, multiple coats don't always equate to "better" performance. Leica comes to mind as a company who's been quietly multi-coating many of their lenses for years, but only when this makes sense to the specifics of the design and intended uses of the lens in question.

[Drew Wiley]

Yep. It's not necessarily a matter of better or worse either. Sometimes I prefer the slightly gentler rendition of a single-coated taking or enlarging lens for color work in particular.