multi-coated lens, multi-coated filters too?

[Dean Taylor]

hello

If the lens being utilized is multi-coated is it also useful to have any added filters multi-coated?

this filter has MC:

http://is.gd/yfteM7

My untutored sense of the matter is inclined to say, 'yes', the full optic 'system' would need MC. True? They're pricey, of course...

thank you

ps: does this filter appear to be MC (could not determine from ad):
http://is.gd/I92FHG

 

[onepuff]

Not necessarily. Lenses are a complex formulation of curved pieces of glass whereas filters are single thin pieces of flat glass or resin and if made from high quality materials would not require the same type or number of coatings as a lens would. Of course, adding any extra elements (such as a filter) to the optical path will affect the way the lens resolves but this may not be so detrimental as to be visible in the final image. I think that multiple coatings are really there to add value to the filter for the manufacturer rather than for any highly useful purpose. I personally have never used multi-coated filters and have not found any detriment to my images. The multiple coatings should do no harm though so feel free to pay extra if you wish for peace of mind.

 

[tkamiya]

There's a loooooooooooooong thread somewhere about this very topic. I don't think consensus was ever reached though.

Personally, I put multicoated filters on my lenses.

 

[StoneNYC]

I buy multi coated on the UV and Circ-pol but everything else is not multi coated, I ONLY use B+W so the glass is high end, but the other filters I use less and it's not worth the extra money IMHO to bother... (oh except I use the nikon circular polarizer because it's super thin, good quality, and much cheaper than the B+W equivalent, but everything else is B+W I think the quality of the filter glass itself is more important than the coating which is mostly more useful for clumsy photographers who don't keep stuff clean ... haha

 

[SpunkySpine]

I recal reading a very long thread on filters. The question was not realy about "multicoated" filters so much as "multiple" filters.
(Or at least that's the way I took it).

One person (the first poster?) showed sise by side photos of the same subject taken with the same camera with the same lens.
The difference was one was taken with no filter and the other was taken with dozens of filters all on the lens at the same time!

It proved that any filters can degrade your photo by the fact you have introduced another layer of glass that may have some light bounced from the surface of your lens to the filter then some of that light reflected back into the lens.

He proved his point with the dozens of filters all on the lens an one time but how much is the degradation with a single... or for that mater, a few filters cause. Most of us would not notice in side to side comparisons. Otherwise we would remove our UV filter to put on our polarizer and may never use a filter with a progressive color to enhance a blue sky or a red sunset.

Cokin P filters anyone?

 

[250swb]

I tend to go for the best B+W filters more out of habit, but don't think the multicoating is a necessity. For instance B+W MRC filters are so much easier to clean, especially in a panic as the light is starting to change and the nearest cloth is my tee shirt. A lens hood would improve matters more than extra coatings on the filter imo.

Steve

 

[summerbee]

If you really need a filter for a certain kind of pictures, take the best your money can buy. A tipicall example is polarizer: the better it is, the easier you'll sell it when you'll need something else, and no falloff for your picture's quality.
If it is not strictly necessary, why to add something unnecessary and that lowers quality? I'd rather spend some more money in MC lenses, instead. By the way, manufacturers best regarded for their multicoatings (i.e. Pentax to name one only) never let out filters with such coatings...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I use MC filters whenever possible, even on non-coated lenses. The less the surfaces of the filter reflect, the less the filter will contribute to flare regardless of the coatings on the lens.
It's better to use a proper lens hood than obsess over what if any coatings are on your lens or filters, a hood will have a noticeable effect even with MC lenses (and filters).

 

[Jim Noel]

Why would any sane person put a cheap piece of glass in front of one which cost hundreds or even thousands?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The quality of the filter absolutely makes a difference: the tranmission quality of the glass, whether or
no the actual colorizing of the filter affects the light path, the flatness of the glass, and yes, the nature
of the coating. Not only if flare an issue, but sharpness. How much this matters is related to how well
you've otherwise controlled flare through proper shading, and how much enlargement the neg is going
to need. With color film, there are some additional variables. Whenever possible, I only buy multicoated
filter for a high-reputation manufacturer. Hard multi-coating also have an additional advantage: they
attract condensation and chemical outgassing vapors much less. This can be a big deal in the field.

 

[Jeff L]

If I recall, the quality of the filter made a difference on my Zeiss 28-85 zoom for Contax. I bought a multi-coated filter and the lens exhibited less flare compared to single or non coated filters.

 

[mopar_guy]

Well, the filter used is only one piece of glass, but it is generally the FIRST piece of glass if it is mounted in front of the lens. I tend to go for MC filters.

 

[Pioneer]

I typically buy coated filters, but I have also used non-coated filters and been happy with the result.

I usually don't get too worried about image degradation. Actually, the entire reason I am using filters in the first place IS to effect the image. I never use a filter to protect the lens, instead I want the color adjustment or the polarizing effect. If not, I see no reason to use it. So, as long as the filter glass is quality glass to start with, I figure I am getting what I want.