Lenses with E-6 Emulsions...Multi vs. Single Coated Lenses

I know there's a number of threads going on with respect to lenses and modern vs. older, etc...but I'm curious about what people can see with their color film shots that a multi-coated lens shows and that a single coated does not show. In other words, are there differences between lens manufacturers of coated and uncoated lenses?...even old lenses (take your pick of make and non-coating vs. a multi-coated lens)

Take two examples:

1) Differences between multi coated Rodenstocks/Nikkors/Schneiders/Fujinons.


2) Differences between the above in multi-coated vs. single/non-multi-coated such as the Fujinon series with the writing on the front of the lens vs. their EBC series with writing on the barrel.

Some times you do not see any difference.

The real difference is noticed when lighting conditions go beyond what a single coated or non-coated lens can handle well with clarity.

You'll find you answer by studying why multi-coatings were invented in the first place.

Uncoated - 4 elements in 2 groups: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71733804@N00/1396906969/

Uncoated - 6 elements in 2 groups: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71733804@N00/787831456/

Single-coated - 6 elements in 2 groups: http://www.flickr.com/photos/71733804@N00/214819096/

Compared to the difference between uncoated and single-coated, the difference between single- and multicoated is minimal. So is the difference between different makes of lens.

But now I have to admit that I own only ONE multicoated LF lens, and I haven't shot colour film with it yet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Calahan

... The real difference is noticed when lighting conditions go beyond what a single coated or non-coated lens can handle well with clarity...

---

Or when the lighting conditions go beyond what a coated lens can handle at all - see my two examples from uncoated lenses. I took one of them with a coated lens too, but that slide was practically unscannable with absolutely no detail in the shadows. The exposure was exactly the same too, I used the FP shutter on a Speed Graphic.

Ole has just scratched the surface. If you search the archives you will find many threads on this subject, including a number of actual performance comparisons with images to illustrate the comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Calahan

......The real difference is noticed when lighting conditions go beyond what a single coated or non-coated lens can handle well with clarity.

---

And sometimes astonishing differences can be seen with the exact same lens fitted with a proper shade! The attached negatives were made with the same 165 mm single coated Angulon within a minute of one another. The one on the left was made with a round rubber lens shade and the other using a homemade barndoor shade. I have to believe that similar differences would hold true for chromes.

I subscribe to the principles of postings 2 and 6, but especially 6. With uncoated lenses I use Kodak Series shades (which I suppose would be more akin to Robert's round rubber shade than his homemade barn doors). I believe I can see a difference between using a shade and not using a shade, but have never done a side-by-side comparison like Robert has done. This is with both transparency material and B&W negs.

I must admit that on first glimpse of the scans I had expected the left to be 'no shade' and the right to be 'with shade' rather than being a comparison between two different shade types. Quite a surprising difference!

So if one can control flare, why would anyone ever buy a multi-coated lens when the single/non-coated ones can be had a lot cheaper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audioexcels

So if one can control flare, why would anyone ever buy a multi-coated lens when the single/non-coated ones can be had a lot cheaper?

---

Multi-coating was developed for e.g. zoom-lenses with many air-glass surfaces. And it's a reason used by advertising, see this thread. When the high-vacuum evaporation apparatus is installed in the factory, multi-coating itself is as cheap as single-coating.

Peter K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by audioexcels

So if one can control flare, why would anyone ever buy a multi-coated lens when the single/non-coated ones can be had a lot cheaper?

---

While it is impossible to eliminate flare completely with even the most efficient shade, you can certainly minimize its effects dramatically by its use. The application of multi-coating makes it possible to formulate lenses with more air to glass surfaces which can mean better correction of other demons unrelated to flare. That said, by using a more efficient lens shade, you can enhance the performance of older (and possibly cheaper, used) lenses, achieving results satisfactory for your application. This is particularly so when using optics with huge coverage or with film formats that approach panoramic in aspect ratio. As an example, with a lens that is designed to just cover a film size where the length is twice the width, nearly 50% of the light passing through the unshaded lens ever reaches the film. With a lens having coverage more generous than that, the percentage of non-image-forming light passing through the lens can rise substantially.

So your question raises a valid point. If, with an efficient shade, you can achieve substantially better results with older lenses, why spring for a more expensive modern one? If the performance of the older lens is otherwise satisfactory for what you are doing, the answer is simple. Furthermore, there are other pictorial qualities of older lenses that may make them more desirable in some instances. In these cases, knowing that you can minimize flare can breathe new life into flare-prone optics.