+1Well, maybe. Are you asking what type of filters to buy? The purpose of a coating on any optical surface is to reduce flare and light scattering when there are bright sources of light (like the sun or reflections) hitting the surface. If you consider the single-coated look to mean lack of contrast and various flare items, then using a single-coated filter may increase this effect. Much of the "single-coated" look you see may be a characteristic of the lens you are using. I often use old Leitz Series VI filters, and I think they are not coated at all, just glass. Maybe they have a single coating, but I can't see it. But I always use a hood and seldom see any flare. If you are buying new filters, most are probably multi-coated now. But there are thousands of perfectly good used filters available used, so I suggest you buy used top brands, like B+W, Heliopan, Nikon, Leitz, Canon, Olympus, or Minolta.
Yes, I have LOTS of single-coated Nikon, Hoya, Vivitar etc,etc. I just wondered about the "theory" of it. Thanks
makes sense to me.Well, maybe. Are you asking what type of filters to buy? The purpose of a coating on any optical surface is to reduce flare and light scattering when there are bright sources of light (like the sun or reflections) hitting the surface. If you consider the single-coated look to mean lack of contrast and various flare items, then using a single-coated filter may increase this effect. Much of the "single-coated" look you see may be a characteristic of the lens you are using. I often use old Leitz Series VI filters, and I think they are not coated at all, just glass. Maybe they have a single coating, but I can't see it. But I always use a hood and seldom see any flare. If you are buying new filters, most are probably multi-coated now. But there are thousands of perfectly good used filters available used, so I suggest you buy used top brands, like B+W, Heliopan, Nikon, Leitz, Canon, Olympus, or Minolta.
I think MC filters would interfere w/the single-coated "look" in B&W.
I have the same results with mine, made at Arsenal in 1961. I think it has to do with the cemented pair behind the aperture which presents a flat or nearly so surface towards the aperture. Otherwise I like it very much. A shade helps but does not solve the problem, a multicoated filter makes no difference at all. My best result so far has been attaching a 3:2 mask to the front of the hood, thus eliminating all light save for that which forms the image. But, the hood attaches to the aperture ring, and everything turns when adjusting focus so it is a HPITA to adjust, and if the sun is in the frame you still get aperture shaped ghosts. Otherwise the lens is lovely, I can work around the flare issues.One of my favourite lenses is a Soviet Jupiter 12 35mm 2.8 Biogon design. It renders beautifully, but its one failing is it flares towards the sun like no other lens I've known. Apparently, they all do that sir, and some people seek them out for this quality. I've wondered whether I could tame the propensity to flare just a little with a high quality multi-coated filter, but suspect internal reflections are the culprit, and the huge beady-eye rear element. However I may try it with a polarising filter as this will at least direct light in one plane. More difficult to experiment with on a rangefinder than an SLR where the results can be seen through the viewfinder.
No.I think MC filters would interfere w/the single-coated "look" in B&W.
Looking through my tests on Yashica single and multi-coated lenses this week, I agree. Putting 28, 35, and various 50mm lenses head to head the differences were negligible to non-existent. If anything I preferred the single-coated DSB's, but even that was hair splitting.but I've been unable to discern a difference in look between single-coated and multi-coated copies of the Gauss.
A single coated filter will have slightly different transmission characteristics than a multi-coated filter, but in any sort of head-to-head test I don't it would interfere with the "look" in black and white. In my opinion, the "look" of a single-coated lens comes from the simple optical designs imposed by the need to limit the number of air-glass surfaces. To use a classic example, there's a noticeable difference in look between a Sonnar design 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor with 6 air-glass surfaces and a Gauss design 105mm f/2.5 with 8, but I've been unable to discern a difference in look between single-coated and multi-coated copies of the Gauss.
No.No.
A multicoated filter will introduce fewer artifacts than a single coated filter, and far fewer artifacts than an uncoated filter.
Define the "single coated look". I'm using coated lenses like Super Angulons which you can't call a simple design, I have 5 of them none are Multi coated, as well as a post WWII coated Angulon, I use them alongside my Multi coated lenses and you really can't see any differences in finished prints.
You will notice I don't use the term Single coated this because most coated lenses have 2 or more coating layers.
No.
Only the degree of reflection is different, not any number of artifacts.
Actually, I would and do call the Super Angulons simple designs since none have more than 4 element groups.
Single coating refers to a single layer of coating on the air-glass surface, so your Super Angulons would have 8 coating layers. A BBAR coating typically consists of 4 to 7 layers of different substances. But as long as we're talking about the same thing I can adapt nomenclature.
I think he implied the statistical sense.
Better coatings reduce veiling glare for a given design. Google veiling glare for the formal definition and how it's tested
Yes.No.
Only the degree of reflection is different, not any number of artifacts.
By reducing the degree of reflection, in case of "ghost" images, the very image can become that dim, that it is no longer effective on the emulsion or the human eye. If "number of artifacts" refers to number of ghost images, then such number may be reduced indeed.
No.
A multicoated filter will introduce fewer artifacts than a single coated filter, and far fewer artifacts than an uncoated filter. In using uncoated lenses I've found that a MC filter is even more important, due to the higher reflectance of the front surface.
An efficient lens hood will make more difference than the filter type, even with MC lenses used with MC filters.
An efficient lens hood will make more difference than the filter type, even with MC lenses used with MC filters.
...nota at all. Fitting an MC filter to a single coated lens won't turn it into an MC lens. But it will raise the flare factor slightly. A single coated filter will raise the FF rather more. The underlying character of any lens is better preserved with an MC vs SC filter - especially in high-flare conditions. Maybe think of it this way: the MC filter draws less attention to itself, it degrades the incoming light to a lesser degree.I think MC filters would interfere w/the single-coated "look" in B&W.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?