noticable difference with T* coating?

jordanstarr · May 4, 2007

hey...

looking to get a 40mm to add to my arsenal. i've noticed the 40mm non-T* is about $300-500 cheaper than the T* coating. there is obviously some difference, but i was just wondering what it is? if it's just better contrast, which is something i can adjust in the darkroom i might as well save the money. keeping in mind i shoot 90% black and white, the subtle difference in colour probably won't bug me that much. i've had both bronica ps and s coated lenses and couldn't tell the shots apart once correcting in the darkroom. just wondering if the same case would be made for hasselblad.

thanks...jordan.

Andrew Moxom · May 4, 2007

I think for black and white, the coating differences will be mainly related to potential for lens flare. I use dto use a 50mm distagon C lens that did not have the * coating. The only difference was the non *coating. If used in certain conditions, flare could be a problem. Contrast wise I believe the * lens would have more, but it would likely be almost undetectable without lab gear. A * lens is also obviously a little bit newer, another reason why the price is higher.

sienarot · May 7, 2007

Hey Jordan! Welcome to APUG!

From what I've read from various sources (here, photo.net, etc...) any differences in contrast is very minimal, if any at all. Some people have said once you add a hood, the difference is practically non-existant. I've yet to see any examples, but that's what I came across a few times in my own research.

Mike Kovacs · May 8, 2007

Personally, with their wider coverage, shallow lens hoods, and complicated elements/groups, I think multicoating is most essential on wide angles. I agree with the previous posters for normal lenses and especially long lenses.

Prospero · May 9, 2007

If you can shade the front element without vignetting - it's OK.

skahde · May 13, 2007

Mike Kovacs said:
Personally, with their wider coverage, shallow lens hoods, and complicated elements/groups, I think multicoating is most essential on wide angles. I agree with the previous posters for normal lenses and especially long lenses.

I agree to a certain extent. I own a 250mm 5.6 C-Sonnar which needs the compendium when used with backlighting. The deidicated shade is not up to the task. OTOH I could not compare it to a T* lens and may be a problem of the very narrow tube the lenses are mounted into and not of the coating.

In any case I would prefer to have this FL as a CF-lens.

best

Stefan

Mike Kovacs · May 14, 2007

With strong back lighting, just about any lens will give you trouble. You might not get flare but you will certainly lose contrast even with multicoated glass.

My 250/5.6 Sonnar has treated me well - this one is in SL66 mount but I'm going to guess its the exact same design as yours. The Rollei shade is very short for the 250 because its also meant for the 80mm lens. I have a Lee compedium shade I use with my Cokin P holder that is much better.

skahde · May 14, 2007

Mike Kovacs said:
With strong back lighting, just about any lens will give you trouble.

The worst conditon I found so far was a dark subject in front of an overcast sky. There is no way to keep it away with your hand or a hat as the unwanted light comes from virtually everywhere. The compendium is the only remedy that works. Direct sunlight is much easier to handle. Just to add that...

best

Stefan

noticable difference with T* coating?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency