uncoated lenses...

[erafal]

so it's just a hunch but i've got a feeling that i'm going to want to get an uncoated lens. if i understand correctly these will offer much less contrast? anyhow, since everyone has gotten so hung up on multicoating it's proving a bit difficult to find information on a nice, old, uncoated lens. any recomendations? any thoughts? anybody out there finding their path going this way? just a hunch but i think this is the one for me...
thanks...
ethan.
ps... i'm just getting started with all of this so any information will be most appreciated.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, shoot a multicoated lens without a lens shade to get close to what a uncoated lens will yield. Or use a uncoated lens with a lens shade to get close to the results of a multicoated lens. Or over-expose and under develop to reduce contrast with a multicoated lens.

But what I think you are looking for may be something different...more along the lines of older portrait lenses or older uncorrected (for color and/or various abereations, etc). bad sp!

What format/type camera are you using -- a big factor when talking about lenses.

Vaughn

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

an uncoated lens. if i understand correctly these will offer much less contrast?

They offer much more flare, which isn't necessarily the same thing as less contrast.

A 'low contrast lens' (if such a thing existed) would take a contrasty scene and do some magic to the brightness range so that all the detail would get recorded on the film.'

An uncoated lens will take a contrasty scene and obliterate the detail in the darker portions by turning them to a uniform grey.

A single-coated lens can (if one is lucky) add enough flare to lift the shadow detail out of the toe of the film curve but not add so much flare as to fog the shadows.

 

[ic-racer]

Also, in low contrast scenes there will not be much difference between uncoated and coated lenses (ie overcast, limited SBR, etc.).

 

[BrianShaw]

There are a lot of us using uncoated lenses, Ethan. I don't quite know where you get the opposite impression. With the exception of flare, which others have discussed, quite high quality photographs can be made with an uncoated lens. Better success can be had by using a lens hood at all times.

While some might argue differently, I say go ahead and get an older lens. Make sure the shutter is in good shape, or can be overhauled to be in good shape. Much of my work has been done with 135 Optar, 5 1/2 inch Kodak Anastigmat, and even with "the lowly" Gundlach Radar.

 

[mudman]

I use a Leica iii from 1939 and an Elmar 50mm f3.5 of the same vintage, uncoated. The results from the camera are phenomenal, though I usual go up a half a grade or a full grade in my paper when printing to get some extra contrast.

 

[erafal]

well, thanks all. quite some interesting points here. if i can narrow down my reply i think that vaughn may be on to what i'm feeling here.

"But what I think you are looking for may be something different...more along the lines of older portrait lenses or older uncorrected (for color and/or various abereations, etc). bad sp!"

so... what would be the name of one of these here older portrait lenses? i def think that a lens designed pre-color would just have to be right. maybe. maybe not.

"What format/type camera are you using -- a big factor when talking about lenses."

i've got here a 4x5 burke and james view camera. it's got one lens board, copal 1, and that's what i've got. well, that and big dreams. we'll see.

 

[phfitz]

erafal,

Voigtlander came out with their APO Collinear in 1900, everyone else followed suit. To get to pre-color you would need to go back to 1880 before Zeiss invented the new 'Jena' glasses. To see what uncoated lenses can do go to www.shorpy.com/ and look around, nice site. Check out the 4x5 Kodachrome section, they are all uncoated glass pre 1945. Purpose build soft focus lenses are usually for 8x10 and larger, they don't stand up to enlarging too well.

Have fun with the hunt.

 

[semeuse]

I think what you're looking for is something like a Petzval portrait lens.

 

[Vaughn]

Check this thread out...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25483

There are modern soft-focus lenses, but there a fellow who bought cheap Chinese magnifying lenses and glued them onto lensboards -- he got some great work (and so did his students).

Another lens is the Turner Reich triple convertable lens -- use with only one element on the back and wide open for some nice distortion. They are not very expensive and are usually in shutters. The older lenses can be quite sharp when closed down to f16 or so...but wide open they have all sorts of wonderful "problems"!

In general, keep an eye out for cheap (<$25 or so) old barrel lenses, make your own lensboards (matboard or whatever) and give them a try! Don't worry about scratches, dings, air bubbles etc!

To experiment, try just using photopaper (5 ASA or so!) Shoot some still lives or take the camera into the backyard and see how the lens looks.

Just have a bunch of fun!

Vaughn

 

[Ole]

Here's a result from a well-shaded uncoated lens:

A coated lens (I tried that too) would give absolutely nothing in the shadows. But an uncoated lens with more than four surfaces would give even less contrast, and lose too much "punch" (I had one of those with me, too).

 

[Larry Bullis]

it's proving a bit difficult to find information on a nice, old, uncoated lens. any recomendations? any thoughts? anybody out there finding their path going this way? just a hunch but i think this is the one for me...

Nearly all of my large format lenses are uncoated. Dagors are great, as are Protars. The tiny Protar V's flare very little since there is so little glass (but focusing at f/18 isn't easy!). I do also enjoy my 10" Commercial Ektar which is single coated, I believe.

I do use some multi- coated lenses, also. Ole's mention of shadow loss is correct, and is a persistent problem with my super angulon. A great lens, but needs a great deal of care in exposing.