Originally Posted by audioexcels
Because one can't always control flare, or at least not sufficiently. Having said that, the difference between single- and multi-coating on LF lenses is minimal – much less than the difference between coated and uncoated.
Richard
One thing I cannot seem to understand when viewing slides/E-6 shots is the older non or single coated lenses do not have the same level of coloration/saturation of the more modern multi-coated lenses. Can someone show me an example of a non/single coated lens that shows excellent color rendition comparable to shots with modern multi-coated lenses?
I did a lot of searching and could find only one thread that showed some wonderful examples of black and white with older lenses.
Well - there are my three examples above, one of them is also at http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg
But then again I haven't shot LF colour with a multi-coated lens yet - most of my lenses are uncoated and single coated, including all my "standard pack" lenses. I'll try a multicoated lens when the light returns.
For what kind of answer are you looking for? E-6 was invented 30 years ago, in this time films with more or less saturation where made. Why not borrow some lenses and try it yourself?
Peter K
Last edited by Peter K; 29-Dec-2007 at 13:10. Reason: syntax
I guess I don't totally understand your question.
This is not processed in the best way as I don't have a scanner yet, but will give you an idea of what is going on.
This was shot with an early 70's pre-MC 150/5.6 Symmar-S on Provia with a 2 or 3 stop GND.
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/59...es-Peak_01.jpg
This was shot in digital with a Canon 17-40L within a few seconds of the other shot.
http://www.ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/40...ak_06_F_03.jpg
They look very similar to me. Not only are the colors similar, but both are faithful to how I remember the scene with my own eyes. In general, I feel that I'm getting very similar results between both of my single coated Schneiders on Provia and what I get out of my digital SLR with multicoated lenses in terms of color and saturation. I have not had any shots where I thought that the colors were off as a result of the lens.
I don't have any multi-coated LF lenses yet, but should have one soon. I guess I can compare at that point, but I really don't expect to see much difference.
There are obviously reasons for multi-coating, but in many situations I don't think that a benefit will be obvious. Proper lens shading seems the best solution to me as well.
Re: Lenses with E-6 Emulsions...Multi vs. Single Coated Lenses
Thank you for the example. The LF shot looks wonderful, capture both foreground and background very well. Lighting wise, the LF shot captured it much better than the Canon IMHO. What Canon body was used?
Rebel XT or 350D at ISO 100.
Once photographers take care of scanning and digital image processing, it is impossible to realistically compare results, especially with jpgs online. The only real way to see differences is two chromes on an evenly lit light table. Everything else introduces additional variables and any skilled scanner operator can easily adjust (or auto adjust) to compensate for the contrast and color differences between lenses.
And the lenses should be roughly the optical formula to be fair too. Like an early and late Symmar for example.
In general, when photographing a point source, like a lamp/headlight/street light in the distance of an architectural or environmental photo, the amount of "glow" and haze around the source will be more or less depending on the amount and type of lens coatings AND the lens design. Some lens designs flare more than others. I had a Leica Summilux that flared at the slightest provocation. I've also had some lenses I could point into the Sun and they would still maintain control of flare.
Another practical consideration is that some of the early single coatings were not very durable and easily damaged by even gentle cleaning.
And the general reputation is that the German lenses (Rodenstock, Scheider) are warmer and smoother than the Japanese (Fuji, Nikon) which emphasis sharpness over all other factors. But only Schneider/Rodenstock have introduced a newer generations of lens designs (Sironar-S and APO-L) while the Japanese have been dormant.
Schneider 150mm Symmars are cheap these days. Why not buy an older $200 one and a newer $350 one and shoot a box of chromes and see once and for all? eBay makes selling your mistakes easy.
Further to Frank's and a lot of similar "which do you like best" or "which is better" sorts of questions which pop up again and again. You can only go so far with subjective comparisons. For the most part, that is all the farther you need to go ... let the final image be the test and let it be your final image and your eye that makes the decision. If you want or need to go farther then you need to do some reading. My first suggestion is always Image Clarity by John Willilams (OOP but readily available used) and several of Rudolf Kingslake's books on photographic optics, his most comprehensive is probably Optics in Photography. You will need some basic grounding in color theory and optics as well. You may also find some simpler but till useful discussions i something like The Way Things Work. I have always felt that my general knowledge of color theory and optics helps me in my photography but that is very subjective. Point here simply is that if you want to delve deeply into this lens v. that lens o a level other than subjective opinions then you need to do some reading.
Frank, you left something out.
Reversal films are very sensitive to exposure errors. In particular, even slight overexposure reduces saturation. For that reason, the only fair film-based comparison between two lenses requires using the same shutter for both and exactly the same illumination. Using two shutters introduces the possibility of unintended exposure errors.
A propos of measuring a lens' rendition of colors, the only way to measure a lens' transmission by wavelength is with a spectrophotometer. Film-based methods are much too hard to control. Film-based measurements are garbage, but this doesn't stop people from blathering about lenses' rendition of colors based on examination of film as shot and processed (not as scanned).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks