Single coated lens

[snusmumriken]

The notion that lens design had gone too far (at least for b/w), and that older lenses had something desirable that was now lost, has been around since the 1970s. 50 years later, it has attained something of a myth status. You’d think there would be some side-by-side comparisons by now, but I’m not aware of any.

 

[xkaes]

SMC and similar multi-coatings had a far greater effect with Zooms and more complex lens designs with numerous internal air glass surfaces.

Perfect summary.

 

[BrianShaw]

The notion that lens design had gone too far (at least for b/w), and that older lenses had something desirable that was now lost, has been around since the 1970s. 50 years later, it has attained something of a myth status. You’d think there would be some side-by-side comparisons by now, but I’m not aware of any.

Probably not exactly what you had in mind but this is about the only comparison I've seen. At least this guy went the additional step beyond typing.



and this, from Zeiss

Lenspire

lenspire.zeiss.com

But if one prefers graphs

About HD Coating / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

Introducing the features of PENTAX original lens coating technology “HD Coating”, adopted on the new lens from RICOH IMAGING Corporation.

www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp

... or this, if one has a lot of time to read

Keppler's Vault 90: Multi-Coated Lenses

Lens coatings are good. If a single coating is good, then multiple coatings must be better. Thus concludes the extent of my knowledge about lens coatings,

mikeeckman.com

 

[xkaes]

I think it's funny how it is reported in the above links that Pentax introduced the first "multi-coating" in the early 1970's by increasing the number of layers from two (common at that time) to seven.

Two layers sounds like multiple layers to me -- which Minolta introduced in the late 1950's. They only called it "achromatic coating" at the time, but it was a big step forward.

OK, so Pentax called it "SUPER" multi-coating, but they called their previous lenses "multi-coated" -- which they were, with two layers.

I guess that makes Fuji's EBC (Electron Beam Coating) which, according to them, can have over 20 layers -- "ULTRA" multi-coating.

 

[Ian Grant]

Perfect summary.

Thank you.

The notion that lens design had gone too far (at least for b/w), and that older lenses had something desirable that was now lost, has been around since the 1970s. 50 years later, it has attained something of a myth status. You’d think there would be some side-by-side comparisons by now, but I’m not aware of any.

Some years ago I did some comparison tests of uncoated lenses, all in excellent optical condition, using a DSLR. A Dagor, Tessar, a Dialyte and a WA dialyte. I posted the results in a thread on this Forum.

The results were as expected contrast depended on the number of internal air/glass interfaces. The Dagor had excellent contrast, the Tessar a slight loss, and the Dialytes a significant drop. Tht's the difference between 2, 4, & 6 internal air/glass surfaces.

I shoot with a 12" Dagor with my 10x8 Agfa Ansco and in B&W there's no discernable difference with prints, compared with similar images made with a Multi-coated 150mm Sironar N, or a 150mm CZJ T Tessar. However, there's quite a difference when I used a 135mm CZJ uncoated Tessar, or an Agfa 135mm Solinar, shadow areas have less detail, and highlights are not quite the same as a coated Tessar.

Ian

 

[BrianShaw]

I think it's funny how it is reported in the above links that Pentax introduced the first "multi-coating" in the early 1970's by increasing the number of layers from two (common at that time) to seven.

Two layers sounds like multiple layers to me -- which Minolta introduced in the late 1950's. They only called it "achromatic coating" at the time, but it was a big step forward.

OK, so Pentax called it "SUPER" multi-coating, but they called their previous lenses "multi-coated" -- which they were, with two layers.

I guess that makes Fuji's EBC (Electron Beam Coating) which, according to them, can have over 20 layers -- "ULTRA" multi-coating.

Marketing terms versus engineering terms versus common English (or any other language) often differ. Secret decoder rings seem necessary!

 

[ic-racer]

If you were to obtain two identical lenses, one with single coat and one with the multi coating and could determine the difference in the images that they made — good for you! I’d like to know how you did it!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Effectiveness of light transmission is factored by both lens design and the a specific glass itself, along with the coatings. NASA was involved in the evolution of modern multi-coatings. I once had a multi-coated 14 inch Swiss Kern Dagor - the pinnacle of the Dagor design, which I used for both 4x5 and 8x10 work. With only four air-glass interfaces, plus superb multi-coating, the level of contrast and hue saturation was so high or intense that it wasn't practical for shooting color chromes! So I actually sold it, and replaced it with the previous single-coated version. Sometimes, there can simply be too much of a good thing.

For the same reason, in the realm of 35mm instead, I was longing for a lens which gave the results which the lens on my early Pentax lens delivered for color slides and prints, rather than the uber-contrasty effect of more modern lenses which I was using on my Nikon. So, thankfully, I discovered the benefits of the old Nikkor single-coated 50/2 H.

I could cite numerous other examples from my own set of lenses, mostly large format examples. The point is, different lenses often have different personalities. It's not all about graphs and specs, and what might be the "latest and greatest'.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think it's funny how it is reported in the above links that Pentax introduced the first "multi-coating" in the early 1970's by increasing the number of layers from two (common at that time) to seven.

Two layers sounds like multiple layers to me -- which Minolta introduced in the late 1950's. They only called it "achromatic coating" at the time, but it was a big step forward.

OK, so Pentax called it "SUPER" multi-coating, but they called their previous lenses "multi-coated" -- which they were, with two layers.

I guess that makes Fuji's EBC (Electron Beam Coating) which, according to them, can have over 20 layers -- "ULTRA" multi-coating.

I had a 1968/9 150mm Sironar (pre N) the coatings were clearly the same as the later MC Sironar N or MC Grandagon N, and their multi coatings are superb.

Multi coating as we know it today clearly pre-dates Pentax Super Multi Coating.

Ian

 

[AnselMortensen]

I'm looking forward to "Super Ultra Mega Dyno" Coating comes out...maybe it will go to 11 !

 

[snusmumriken]

Some years ago I did some comparison tests of uncoated lenses, all in excellent optical condition, using a DSLR. A Dagor, Tessar, a Dialyte and a WA dialyte. I posted the results in a thread on this Forum.

The results were as expected contrast depended on the number of internal air/glass interfaces. The Dagor had excellent contrast, the Tessar a slight loss, and the Dialytes a significant drop. Tht's the difference between 2, 4, & 6 internal air/glass surfaces.

I shoot with a 12" Dagor with my 10x8 Agfa Ansco and in B&W there's no discernable difference with prints, compared with similar images made with a Multi-coated 150mm Sironar N, or a 150mm CZJ T Tessar. However, there's quite a difference when I used a 135mm CZJ uncoated Tessar, or an Agfa 135mm Solinar, shadow areas have less detail, and highlights are not quite the same as a coated Tessar.

Thank you, Ian. I had forgotten - but do now remember - your previous posts about this. I suppose I had in mind a comparison using early uncoated and later coated small format lenses of similar design. It could be done with the old and current Elmars, for instance. It would interesting to see whether one could discern differences in tonality either in the image itself or on a histogram.

 

[Paul Howell]

I started with single coated Nikon lens in non Ai mount, when I upgraded to a F3P I had my lens converted to AI. The only non AI that I replaced was the 28mm for a newer 28 2.8 AIS as the non AI tended to flare more than I liked. In terms of sharpness and contrast I did not have any problems that I could not deal with extending development by 5 to 7% or increased contrast from grade 2 to grade 3. For those to like the somewhat softer contrast of SC vs. MC Nikon non AI lens can be found in good condition at a good price.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thank you, Ian. I had forgotten - but do now remember - your previous posts about this. I suppose I had in mind a comparison using early uncoated and later coated small format lenses of similar design. It could be done with the old and current Elmars, for instance. It would interesting to see whether one could discern differences in tonality either in the image itself or on a histogram.

I'm not really a 35mm shooter, but the comparison of Elmars would be the same as LF Tessars, , I could compare Cooke Triplets uncoated, coated, & Multi-coated.

One point I was making was the importance of the internal air/glass surfaces, now I was comparing uncoated lenses. I remember buying second hand M42 zooms, around 19756, coated but poor contrast, and then buying the first version of the Vivitar S1 70-210mm and what a difference, outstanding.

If you were to obtain two identical lenses, one with single coat and one with the multi coating and could determine the difference in the images that they made — good for you! I’d like to know how you did it!

That really depends on the choice of lens, I agree with fairly run-of-the-mill standards, telephotos, etc. More complex lens designs with 10 to into the 20s internal air/glass surfaces with some Zoom lenses that would be quite easy.

Ian

 

[grant.goodes]

I suppose I had in mind a comparison using early uncoated and later coated small format lenses of similar design. It could be done with the old and current Elmars, for instance. It would interesting to see whether one could discern differences in tonality either in the image itself or on a histogram.

Good candidates for this sort of apples-to-apples comparison are the early Nikkors which were often upgraded to "C" (multi-coated) versions in the early 70's. Often, Nikon kept the same design in the singled-coated, then multi-coated ("C" designation, and later called NIC, or Nikon Integrated Coating). So if you get a 105/2.5 P and compare it to the later 105/2.5 PC, you have the exact same optical and mechanical layout with just better coatings.

 

[dynachrome]

I have quite a few 105/2.5 Nikkors. When I hold the all black P next to a PC, their coatings look the same. My guess is that Nikon had left over P barrels and put PC elements in them. In general I think that the move from uncoated to coated lenses was more consequential than the move from coated to mutilcoated. I have a question about Kodak's coatings. Were the early coated lenses considered Lumenized in the U.S. and Luminised in England? I remember when my mother got her Polaroid 250, with the flip-up Zeiss Ikon rangefinder/viewfinder. The instruction book specifically recommended that you shoot with the sun over your shoulder. It is more difficult to see flare with an RF than with an SLR.

 

[blee1996]

For wide angle landscape work near sunrise and sunset (when shooting into the sun, even at an angle, and when there are lots of light and reflection off water or sky), I can clearly see differences between the later multi-coated optics compared to earlier single coated samples of same lens model. Often manufacturers make other optical changes to improve performance such as edge sharpness.

Of course, glare can be a good thing to convey mood. Like many cinematographer uses flare creatively, and drive up the price of older still photographer lenses to astronomically high prices.

For large format portraits, I find my single coated Dagor too sharp and too contrasty. So I resort to older non-coated lenses and "lesser corrected" optical formulas.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Coatings have several purposes in optical design. Helping to control flare is only one of them. Coatings can also be designed to correct or, better-phrased, fine tune, the characteristics of specific glass types relative to their intended application. Sometimes this has been done so well with a single-coatings that it would be redundant or possibly even deleterious to add more layers.

Then blee just mentioned portrait lenses. An example would be the Fuji L series for large format work. These are relatively modern tessar design lenses deliberately given only a single coating with the portrait studio market especially in mind. I did sometimes use a MC Kern Dagor for 8x10 portraiture, but selectively for smooth complexions, and in relation to modest (less contrasty) film and print development.

 

[reddesert]

The difference between uncoated and so-called single-coated lenses, is much greater than the difference between single and multi-coated lenses. Numerically, the reflectivity at each surface is roughly: 4%, 1%, and about 0.5% respectively. But it is better to think about it as multiplying the transmissivity by the number of surfaces, if there are N surfaces, total T ~ 0.96^N, 0.99^N, or 0.995^N respectively. Then, most of what isn't transmitted: 1-T_total, goes into non-image forming light (glare). If you put N=6 or 8 into the formulae, for a 3 or 4 group lens, the un- vs coated difference is notable.

But that's a bunch of arithmetic. I think the reality is that many people on the internet spend more time splitting hairs about distinctions like single/multi "single coated lenses for B&W" but never talk about using a lens shade. It is a lot easier to add veiling light if you need it, than to take it out.

 

[grant.goodes]

The difference between uncoated and so-called single-coated lenses, is much greater than the difference between single and multi-coated lenses....

But that's a bunch of arithmetic. I think the reality is that many people on the internet spend more time splitting hairs about distinctions like single/multi "single coated lenses for B&W" but never talk about using a lens shade. It is a lot easier to add veiling light if you need it, than to take it out.

I've never had the opportunity to use a completely uncoated lens, but yes, the math of 4% transmission-loss per lens-surface doesn't lie!

I do own a Nikkor 105/2.5 P from 1971 or so which, lacking the "C" designation, is supposed to be single-coated. I also have the later NIC and SIC versions (these are two different generations of Nikon's multi-coating technology). The single-coated lens shows veiling flare with any bright light in the image frame, and I make sure to use a quite deep hood when shooting with it. The NIC and SIC multi-coating is clearly superiour in this regard, but nearly indistinguishable from each other, and the short built-in hood of those lenses seems adequate for most shooting situations.

Agreed that a lot of this is splitting hairs (or pixels): If a lens gives you good images, just shoot with it and don't worry that supposedly improved versions exist. Clearly I have a bit of a problem with my massive collection of 105mm Nikkors (8 lenses, though most were under $200), but that is because I like the focal-length, and each lens has its merits.

 

[xkaes]

I'm glad that the last two posts brought up "lens shade" -- so I didn't have to. It's the cheapest way to improve your photos -- no matter what the lens coating.

 

[grant.goodes]

I'm glad that the last two posts brought up "lens shade" -- so I didn't have to. It's the cheapest way to improve your photos -- no matter what the lens coating.

Yeah, and go for the deepest one you can get (obviously without vignetting). Too often the "correct" manufacturer shade is _way_ too shallow. My worst example is the Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar, which has a 37mm deep bayonet hood, totally inadequate for a 180mm lens: I now use the HN-30 for the Micro-ikkor 200/4 AF-D, which is 75mm deep.

I know hoods can be a pain as they make the lens bigger to carry, and most of them don't reverse for storage, but in addition to giving you better images, they also protect the front of the lens from knocks, and on two occasions have sacrificed themselves to save my lenses from destruction.

 

[Oldwino]

Effectiveness of light transmission is factored by both lens design and the a specific glass itself, along with the coatings. NASA was involved in the evolution of modern multi-coatings. I once had a multi-coated 14 inch Swiss Kern Dagor - the pinnacle of the Dagor design, which I used for both 4x5 and 8x10 work. With only four air-glass interfaces, plus superb multi-coating, the level of contrast and hue saturation was so high or intense that it wasn't practical for shooting color chromes! So I actually sold it, and replaced it with the previous single-coated version. Sometimes, there can simply be too much of a good thing.

I experienced something similar a few years back. I have a beautiful old Elmar 5cm uncoated lens (1932) that I use on my III. It is sharp, and has a very wide tonal range. It also can flare (unsurprisingly). I tried out Leica's latest version, the Elmar-M 50mm f2.8 at one point, on one of my M mount bodies. It was so bitingly sharp, and so so contrasty, that it hurt to look at those pictures.
I'm sure it is a more technically "correct" lens, but it just seemed like it went too far down that road. I sold it - still have the old 5cm...

Most of my film lenses, in both 135 or 120, are single coated, but not because I feel that it gives me any great technical advantage. Rather, I just prefer how these mid-century (say 1955-1975) lenses render. I guess it's the same thing with preferring the overall look of a film photograph to a "digital" photograph.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I don't use zoom lenses, so keeping a permanent shade on a lens is an easy solution, except in the case of wide-angle lenses, which are always problematic facing the sun. That pertains to 35mm and MF cameras.

The advantage of view cameras, which are customarily used atop tripods, is that an adjustable compendium shade is more easily used, which can be highly effective for a wide range of lenses. With my MF cameras atop a tripod,
I sometimes use a flexible shaft dark metal "flag" held at the other end by the hot shoe slot. Shading with a free hand or my baseball cap is easier, but more of a gamble.

 

[xkaes]

Yeah, and go for the deepest one you can get (obviously without vignetting). Too often the "correct" manufacturer shade is _way_ too shallow. My worst example is the Voigtländer 180/4 APO-Lanthar, which has a 37mm deep bayonet hood, totally inadequate for a 180mm lens: I now use the HN-30 for the Micro-ikkor 200/4 AF-D, which is 75mm deep.

I know hoods can be a pain as they make the lens bigger to carry, and most of them don't reverse for storage, but in addition to giving you better images, they also protect the front of the lens from knocks, and on two occasions have sacrificed themselves to save my lenses from destruction.

All great points. I learned a long time ago to use the "next shade up" on my lenses because what the lens maker provides -- IF they provide one -- is too WIDE. For example, I use a 28mm lens shade on my 24mm lens, and a 35mm lens shade on my 28mm lens. Of course, I always check for possible vignetting by stopping down the lens and close focusing with a filter on the lens.

 

[snusmumriken]

Of course, I always check for possible vignetting by stopping down the lens and close focusing with a filter on the lens.

That’s counterintuitive to me. I’d have guessed you’d be more likely to get vignetting (and flare) at larger apertures, because more of the glass is involved in forming the image?