uncoated + coated filter order

[denoise]

Hi,

I have a linear polariser (uncoated) and an orange filter (coated) I want to use together. Should I screw the uncoated filter first and then the coated one as the outermost? or would be the order of the filters work exactly the same?

thanks!

 

[astroclimb]

Order wont matter...

 

[Alan Gales]

I wouldn't worry about it but I favor the polariser on the end (outermost) for ease of use.

 

[Xmas]

Less flare with uncoated first but hood and French flag as well.

They will look like Apollo Hasselblad shots?

 

[denoise]

hey.. thanks!

yes, I'm looking for the Apollo look

 

[jeffreyg]

Sometimes stacking filters especially if a lens shade is involved can result in some vignetting.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Alan Gales]

Sometimes stacking filters especially if a lens shade is involved can result in some vignetting.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

That's where your baseball cap comes in handy as a shade.

If you want to do it in style then use a St. Louis Cardinals cap.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi,

I have a linear polariser (uncoated) and an orange filter (coated) I want to use together. Should I screw the uncoated filter first and then the coated one as the outermost? or would be the order of the filters work exactly the same?

thanks!

I would keep the best coated filter at the outermostendin the hopes of having the best glare pprotection this way;just a gut feeling though.:confused:

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I would keep the best coated filter at the outermostendin the hopes of having the best glare pprotection this way;just a gut feeling though.:confused:

I agree with that. After all, each air-glass surface is a source of flare, so veiling flare that is produced by the first air-glass surface would be reflected by subsequent surfaces. The effect is probably small, but given the option, why not put the best filter first?

 

[Alan Gales]

I own single coated lenses and some large format photographers own old lenses with no coatings at all. If properly shaded they perform well.

 

[Arklatexian]

I own single coated lenses and some large format photographers own old lenses with no coatings at all. If properly shaded they perform well.

This brings up a question in my mind. When working in B&W and only in B&W, are coated optics really necessary? I know lens shades are but what about coating. I sit at my desk looking at my Ansel Adams calender and see beautiful pictures made before lenses were coated by their manufacturers. I am pretty sure coating is needed to shoot color, but then I don't shoot color film......Regards!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Coating improves contrast and makes it possible to design more complex lenses, so it's an advantage with B&W as well as color. Fast Planar-type lenses have been around about as long as simpler designs like the Tessar, but didn't become popular until coatings improved their contrast, for instance.

Lens shades help to reduce flare from light falling obliquely on the front element, and they can reduce the image circle to cut down on internal reflections inside the lens and camera, but they do not reduce veiling flare that comes from the subject itself--coatings do.

That said, there are many factors involved in making any kind of image, and I wouldn't worry excessively about lens coatings, diffraction at small apertures, glass negative carriers, and other technical marginalia over things like subject content and lighting.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Fast Planar-type lenses have been around about as long as simpler designs like the Tessar, but didn't become popular until coatings improved their contrast, for instance.

David I've seen this statement many times. I'm also aware that TTH sold 6/4 double Gauss type lenses, most f/2 or so, to Hollywood in the '30s. What did cinematographers know that still photographers of the time not know? Boyer and Dallmeyer also sold fastish 6/4 double Gauss types during the '30s, but I don't know which market took them. Boyer sold one explicitly for Exakta SLRs.

Also, everyone ignores the uncoated f/2 Schneider Xenons (made, I believe, under license from TTH) offered for Kodak Retinas in the late '30s. They make me wonder whether flare and poor transmission were really the reason that 6/4 double Gauss types for 35 mm still cameras didn't really catch on until coating came in.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Interesting question, Dan. Maybe one factor is that cinematographers had less freedom with regard to the shutter speed, so a wider range of apertures would be more of an attraction.

 

[Dan Fromm]

David, diaphragms are diaphragms. Perhaps "Hollywood" used lens hoods and controlled lightling more consistently than still photographers did. Control of lighting seems to be at the heart of the Director of Photography religion.

 

[Alan Gales]

This brings up a question in my mind. When working in B&W and only in B&W, are coated optics really necessary? I know lens shades are but what about coating. I sit at my desk looking at my Ansel Adams calender and see beautiful pictures made before lenses were coated by their manufacturers. I am pretty sure coating is needed to shoot color, but then I don't shoot color film......Regards!

Are coatings necessary for B&W? No. Are they nice to have? Yes.

When using uncoated optics you have to be extra careful to shade your lens to prevent lens flare.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

David, diaphragms are diaphragms.

What I'm saying is that still photographers have the option of using a long shutter speed in low light, and cinematographers don't have that option, so they might be willing to sacrifice a little contrast for a faster lens design and make the contrast up elsewhere (lighting, film development, etc.).

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. Isn't that why they invented day for night?

 

[Xmas]

Hollywood allowed you out of studio cause of good light ~ massive reflectors, no clouds.

Pro cine cameras have variable sector shutters but cannot do slow speeds at 24fps.

Cosina do M lenses (35 & 40mm /1.4) in single coated and they sell well.

I use single coated lenses and filters for

flashed shadows for mire zone1 detail
adaptive compression for burnt highlights

in mono, but when I used to use Velvia I also got less vibrant colours, like water colour pastels...

Depends what signature you want ie YMMV.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I own single coated lenses and some large format photographers own old lenses with no coatings at all. If properly shaded they perform well.

Yes they do.
But - I'm careful to use multicoated filters on uncoated lenses, the MC filter is that much less likely to reflect any light reflected by the uncoated front element.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

This brings up a question in my mind. When working in B&W and only in B&W, are coated optics really necessary? I know lens shades are but what about coating. I sit at my desk looking at my Ansel Adams calender and see beautiful pictures made before lenses were coated by their manufacturers. I am pretty sure coating is needed to shoot color, but then I don't shoot color film......Regards!

Nope. A complete fallacy.

 

[Xmas]

Nope. A complete fallacy.

confirmed I've shot lots of slide colour film with uncoated Fed I from 1936. FISON hood & single coated uV filter.

 

[Alan Gales]

Yes they do.
But - I'm careful to use multicoated filters on uncoated lenses, the MC filter is that much less likely to reflect any light reflected by the uncoated front element.

I agree. I would do the same. In fact I have multicoated UV filters on all my single coated lenses. The filters have the added bonus of protecting the front elements from damage too.

I'm just trying to make the point that what the OP originally asked isn't critical if the lens and filters are properly shaded like they should be.