removing lens coating ???

[Delfi_r]

Coating it's done depositing a thin (sometinmes one atom level) amount of some metallic elements. They are not soluble with any solvent. But you can remove it.

As suggested avobe you don't need to do something so radical. I's even stupid to damage a lens to obtain something that can be easy other ways. You can try another lens more suited to your purpose.

[Tin Can]

I love my 610mm NIKON lens

Lightweight, has built in lens cap and works fine with a Packard

and sharp

Read the past, Apo Nikkor 610 mm f9

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1029246

[jnantz]

John, the OP is wondering about improving UV transmission through a lens, not looking to modify the image quality/characteristics. If all he wants is to optimize UV transmission, removing the coatings isn't going to achieve that. If, on the other hand, he just wants to experiment with modifying the lens, then anything goes. (As long as he's willing to accept the possibility that he might just end up with a useless lens)

well if he removes the coating and it screws up the lens is what I was getting at, then the whole back end will be cooked !

[mhayashi]

If you care about the lens coating, why not buy an uncoated dialyte like an old apo ronar?
You could still ask Jason Lane to remove the coating but 8 surface coating removal is very expensive.
I wouldn’t do that and simply buy an uncoated lens….

BTW, here is the link to apo nikkor catalog. UV sensitivity and the range of spectrums are mentioned.
https://www.savazzi.net/download/manuals/Apo-Nikkor.pdf

[Nodda Duma]

I’m not yet set up to strip coatings after moving.

In any case, knowing what I do about how coatings work and what they get you in the UV, removing them will still result in a net loss of throughput for wet plate. So leave them on, they are helping your total transmission.

FYI bulk transmission loss in the glass itself (esp. lanthanides) is a bigger contributor and even that isn’t really significant.