And these lenses are not multi-coated??? So flaring is also an issue?
And these lenses are not multi-coated??? So flaring is also an issue?
It's a great value, but single-coating worries me..
Is the lens single-coated? What are the benefits of multi-coating?
With all due respect, you're asking some pretty basic questions. I'm picking that you're going to get flamed a bit by some of the members here.
I'd suggest using Google et al AND the search function here (see tool bar above) to try to find answers before asking here.
Lachlan.
You miss 100% of the shots you never take. -- Wayne Gretzky
Yes, it is single coated.
Multicoating effectively increases contrast over single coating, which can be either good or bad in a specific instance, but is generally good.
There's probably more difference between uncoated versus single coated than single versus multicoated. Contrast Also depends on the lens design and internal baffling as well.
If you shoot B&W, it mostly doesn't matter because you can adjust contrast by development time. St. Ansel mentioned this somewhere in "the Making of 40 Photographs"'
Cheers, Steve
Picking up on this old thread: Personally, I agree that overall the non vs single coating, shows greater benefits, than single vs multi coating. Unless you're doing commercial and/or tranny work, I prefer single coat. A lens hood/hat/ dark slide easily addresses stray light. Cost of purchasing is sometimes much more reasonable. I have a multi-coated 270 G-Claron that is contrastier than I prefer for my B&W work.
There's so many unique old uncoated old lenses out there, with amazing rendering qualities. As always, the right tool for the right job.
I think everyone going into LF photography should be required to start with an uncoated lens in an early shutter. Then when they later begin to acquire more equipment they will have an appreciation for the word those of us who were using this equipment in the 1930's and before.I still prefer the more realistic rendering of the old lenses over the sharp cut-off cut and paste images produced by modern ultra-sharp lenses. Each has its place, but it makes little sense to degrade the wonderful equipment from which modern materials and equipment grew.
Paddy
I don't think there any multi-coated 270mm g clarons. Or any multi-coated g clarons, period. So what you are saying is that a single coated lens is too contrasty for you. Personally I would never pass on a great lens because it is single coated.
Actually, it is multi-coated. Back in the mid 2000's I sent the lens, in barrel, off to Arax, in Kiev, where it received a modern multi re-coating. Then I had SK Grimes mount it into a Copal shutter. It's now definitely much contrastier than the original single coated version. I just never ended up using it much because I seem to prefer my old 270 Tele-Arton (s. coated). It's definitely a rare bird, though.
There's a lot of great info to be found by clicking on the LF Home Page on that light blue banner way up ^^^there^^^
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...s-general.html
FWIW I only own one multicoated LF lens and my ratio of single coated to un coated lenses are about 50/50.
They all get used and are all fine performers.
Don't stress over your gear minutiae, stress over the minutiae you see upside down and backwards on the ground glass instead
Better yet don't stress at all---just enjoy the adventure!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Bookmarks