First Coated Lenses

[Two23]

I just received a 250mm Imagon (60s vintage with Copal 3?), and have read it's a pretty primitive lens design. Apparently it was coated by Rodenstock from the beginning, something like 1931. I've been discovering that coated lenses are very beneficial to my kind of photography. (I shoot at night using flash, and uncoated lenses flare easily.) What were some of the earliest lenses that were coated, and when did they appear? I especially want to know which ones I might easily find, and are appropriate for my 4x5 Shen Hao. I have a Schneider SA 90mm f5.6 that is monocoated, but I assume it's only from the 1950s or later. It has a PC post (and 3 choices for sync including X and M.) What were the first coated lenses for 4x5?


Kent in SD

[GPS]

Lenses were naturally coated since their origin. Most of the old lenses are - by now- already naturally coated. It was only in the WWI that military people noticed that and started later with the first artificial lens coating. A good proper lens shade has more effect on picture quality than lens coating.

[Dan Fromm]

Kent, as a practical matter lens coating reached the civilian market after WW-II. Coating under vacuum was invented at CZJ in 1934, wasn't commercialized and the patent wasn't published because the process was seen as a military secret.

Why do you think that Rodenstock sold coated lenses before WW-II? Existence of coated pre-WW-II lenses isn't conclusive because after the war it was possible to have old lenses coated.

EKCo started coating lenses for civilians in 1946; not all of the lenses EKCo made in '46 are coated, I have one that isn't. Coating was pretty universal by '50.

Also as a practical matter, nearly all lenses made for large format after WW-II are "modern" types, i.e., well-corrected anastigmats. There are no reasons but nostalgia and budget to prefer lenses from the late '40s through the mid- to late-60s to newer ones, the newer ones are better in all respects.

GPS, lenses are coated for two reasons. To reduce veiling flare and to improve transmission. It was only after coating was invented that modern types with 8 air-glass interfaces were made in quantity for still photography. Or so the story goes. What puzzles me is that in the '30s TTH made a variety of fast 6/4 double Gauss types for cine cameras. What, I wonder, did "Hollywood" know that Leica users didn't?

GPS, re "natural coating," my pre-WW-I CZJ and B&L lenses don't have it. Surely they're old enough.

[GPS]

...
GPS, re "natural coating," my pre-WW-I CZJ and B&L lenses don't have it. Surely they're old enough.

How do you know they don't have the natural tarnish?

[Ole Tjugen]

Some of the early glass types tarnish, others do not. I have an old Schneider Xenar Typ D which has natural tarnish that functions as a coating, but I have never seen an Aplanat with tarnish: It's the wrong type of glass for it.

I have a post-production-coated Rodenstock Eurynar as well as an original uncoated one of the same age. With eight air/glass surfaces, it makes a LOT of difference in flare and contrast.

[GPS]

...

GPS, lenses are coated for two reasons. To reduce veiling flare and to improve transmission. It was only after coating was invented that modern types with 8 air-glass interfaces were made in quantity for still photography. Or so the story goes. What puzzles me is that in the '30s TTH made a variety of fast 6/4 double Gauss types for cine cameras. What, I wonder, did "Hollywood" know that Leica users didn't?

...

Dan, lenses are coated for a multitude of reasons. There are even lenses coated with anti UV coatings, anti fog coatings among other reasons.
What Hollywood knew that Leica users didn't was probably the use of good lens dedicated lens shades. Ever wondered why photographers don't use good effective lens shades so common in movie cameras?

[GPS]

Some of the early glass types tarnish, others do not. I have an old Schneider Xenar Typ D which has natural tarnish that functions as a coating, but I have never seen an Aplanat with tarnish: It's the wrong type of glass for it.

I have a post-production-coated Rodenstock Eurynar as well as an original uncoated one of the same age. With eight air/glass surfaces, it makes a LOT of difference in flare and contrast.

Yes, it depends on the glass composition.

[Dan Fromm]

How do you know they don't have the natural tarnish?

Inspection. The glasses are water white at all viewing angles.

Sometimes one has to look hard to see coating's effects. I have a couple of TTH and Wray lenses that are coated a nearly invisible light blue.

[GPS]

Inspection. The glasses are water white at all viewing angles.

...

Hmm. Sounds like a natural tarnish...

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Sounds like a natural tarnish...

You can't see it either.