uncoated + coated filter order

denoise

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
2
Format
Multi Format
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!
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
I wouldn't worry about it but I favor the polariser on the end (outermost) for ease of use.
 

Xmas

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
Less flare with uncoated first but hood and French flag as well.

They will look like Apollo Hasselblad shots?
 
OP
OP

denoise

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
2
Format
Multi Format
hey.. thanks!

yes, I'm looking for the Apollo look
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,588
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
RalphLambrecht said:
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:
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
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

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
1,777
Location
Shreveport,
Format
Multi Format
Alan Gales said:
I own single coated lenses and some large format photographers own old lenses with no coatings at all. If properly shaded they perform well.
Click to expand...
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
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

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,798
Format
Multi Format
David A. Goldfarb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
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

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,798
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format

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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
Dan Fromm said:
David, diaphragms are diaphragms.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
6,798
Format
Multi Format
Hmm. Isn't that why they invented day for night?
 

Xmas

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
6,398
Location
UK
Format
35mm RF
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

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
Alan Gales said:
I own single coated lenses and some large format photographers own old lenses with no coatings at all. If properly shaded they perform well.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format
Nope. A complete fallacy.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
E. von Hoegh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…