• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

uncoated or single coated lenses for b&w?

MattKing said:
An inexpensive 70s era zoom lens may meet your needs too, although it can be hard to find a wide angle version.
Click to expand...
Ok, so judging from all this excellent advice, I am going to try to achieve this effect by shooting with Fomapan 100 (for its bad handling of halation, as I have learned) and a zoom lens. My last question is, I have a Zeiss c/y mount 45mm that has T coating, so thinking of getting one of Yashica’s DSB (single coated) lenses. Will it matter if I get a prime or a zoom dsb? Will a zoom create more of this blown out effect?
 
Yes, the shittier the lens the better - for what you’re after. Seriously. Just use some sand paper to heavily scratch the front element of any lens and you’ll achieve the desired effect. A lens full of haze will work too.
 
I know, everyone will give you a different answer.

I know, it’s a TLR, but then again if you want the real deal you have to buy the real deal: rolleiflex with a Triotar lens, or a Ikoflex with a Novar uncoated.

Magical
 
BradS said:
Yes, the shittier the lens the better - for what you’re after. Seriously. Just use some sand paper to heavily scratch the front element of any lens and you’ll achieve the desired effect. A lens full of haze will work too.
Click to expand...

Come on man, why such BAD advice? No scratched lens will ever give a good, sharp but uncoated lens look!
The poetry of the uncoated lenses is that they, still, are PLENTY sharp.

Besides, to the op: if you are going to sand off a lens, please be smart. Sand off a filter that you’ll screw over the clean lens. Do it smart.
 
NB23 said:
....No scratched lens will ever give a good, sharp but uncoated lens look!
Click to expand...

Ever tried it? I think that you'd be surprised. Scratches on the front have surprising little effect. Mostly just contribute "glow".

NB23 said:
....if you are going to sand off a lens, please be smart. Sand off a filter that you’ll screw over the clean lens. Do it smart.
Click to expand...

Good idea!
 
Try what? Surprised by what?

If you want an uncoated look, you use an uncoated lens. In the 1920-30-40’s, people didn’t want to use scratched lenses. They used the excellent offerings they had available to them, and they came up with images that the op wants to emulate.

No one back then wanted anything to do with scratched lenses.

BradS said:
Ever tried it? I think that you'd be surprised. Scratches on the front have surprising little effect. Mostly just contribute "glow".



Good idea!
Click to expand...
 
flavio81 said:
Fomapan 400 and/or Shanghai GP3 can give more or less a similar look - it has poor anti-halation properties.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice that at all with Shanghai GP3 400. Unless the 220 format I've been using is different than the emulsion for 35mm.
 
I can sell u my Agfa Optima 1035. Really nice camera but for some reason gives very glowy results. Not sure why because the lens looks fine, and the same lens in my Optima 1535 does not do that.
 
you can also use some filters that will give you the same effect
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...xpDuyYUQP0-tfgbX89NeMBQqrb8KTofxoCxoUQAvD_BwE
it will probably be cheaper than buying a lens, and when you no longer want that effect just take the filter off
 
Surface damage aside, Lens-induced glow results from veiling glare. Lens coatings do not guarantee/prevent a glow, as the amount of veiling glare is dependent on the specific design. Old Anastigmats, for example, are uncoated but have high contrast.

The film you use is just as important, as halation is also an effective way to achieve glow around highlights. .

Fomapan 100 has an inefficient anti-halation layer and will show glow around highlights due to halation. The dry plates I make have no anti-halation layer and show strong glow around highlights even with modern lenses and multilayer coatings.
 

One should not overlook that base-thickness has influence on the radius of the halo. At this point there is a big difference between film and glass.
 
Some really great images have been taken with plastic single element lenses, and they only needed a "coat" for protection from hail. So calling any lens "useless" is like ....
 
For those who claim uncoated lenses are useless... this was taken with a 17mm Wtulens which is made from the lens taken out of a Fuji QuickSnap disposable camera.
Uncoated and as basic as you can find. Handles flare pretty well!




 
Yashica's single coated DSB lenses offer more of what you're looking for than the multi-coated ML range of CY mount glass*. I concur with those who suggest you use a traditional film with a limited anti-halation layer. High contrast subjects offer more light "bleed" than low contrast shots. Acutance Rodinal type developers increase this phenomenon. My favourite was Lucky 100 ASA film from China, which exemplified those characteristics.

edit* I see you've noted DSB coating.
 
My experience is uncoated lenses have a completely different feel and look compared to coated there's a big step change, there's far less difference between a Coated lens and a Multicoated lens. I don't use the term Single coated because many pre -Multi Coating" coated lenses actually have more than one layer of coating.

The British photographer James Ravilious used uncoated Leica lenses for the feel and look they gave to his work. I have a T coated CZJ 150mm f4.5 Tessar from1953/4 and the coatings are as good in terms of flare as modern MC equivalents, there's a visible coldness due to the bueish coating.but that was common with some early coaing needinga warm up filter for Colour work.

If you really want that uncoated feel get a n uncoated pre-WWII lens.

Ian
 

James Ravilious has to be one of my favourite photographers! Anyway, I use my (uncoated) Leica Summar lens on an almost daily basis and just love the rendering it gives.

All the best,
Dee.
 
vickersdc said:
James Ravilious has to be one of my favourite photographers! Anyway, I use my (uncoated) Leica Summar lens on an almost daily basis and just love the rendering it gives.

All the best,
Dee.
Click to expand...

Some of the rendering is down to the Summar's early design. Meyer made some of the earaliest fast lenses for Leica's and distributed them and Leica camera in the UK through their agents A.O. Roth, there was a Meyer 50mm f1.5 Plasmat, also an f2. In the mid to late 1920's Meyer introduced a lot of new designs and tried to break through become a major German lens manufacturer.

I've never seen the Meyer 50mm f1.5 Plasmat, I don't know how many they sold here, but I've not seen one on Ebay either. Leitz's first f1.5 lens. the Xenon was actually a British Taylor, Taaylor, Cooke, lens design to compete with the CZJ 50mm f1.5 Sonnar made for the Contax but also sold in Leica M39 mount, Schneider also licensed the Xenon design. Post WWII TTH made Leitz first coated 50mm f1.5 lenses.

Ian
 
All lenses even the Quicksnap have at least two air-to-glass interfaces.

Ian, it’s ok to say Single-layer coatings understanding that specifically means a 1/4 wave thick layer of Magnesium Flouride. So it means a specific thing. There are many different Multi-layer coatings, starting with the primitive designs of the 1960s, but they are all related in the fact that there’s only a handful of materials used in designing the layers. See the sticky post I made on the details of coatings somewhere here in Photrio.
 

I thought multiple coatings, wellinitially two goes back to just before WWII and a Zeiss Patent. I think the problem is many use the term Single coated for all pre- Super Multi Coated lenses, and other manufacturers equivalents. There's a blurring of terms because there's been a fall back to using the term Multi Coated to encompass the more modern extremely well balanced coatings.

So there's not a simple term that encompasses the lenses with early balanced multiple coatings to help with colour balance, I think introduced late 1950's rater then early 1960's but with CZJ it's the 50mm Pancolar arenamed Flexon with thenewer coatings and the Color Skopars from Voigtlander.

No-one really compares coatings, I've owned I think 7 203mm f7.7 Ektar lenses 6 British made and the changes o=in cotaings is quite marked. The oldest are/were in Kodak Epsilon (Ross) shutters these are in Kodak terms Lumenised, then newer ones in Prontor SVS shutters have improved coatinds and that's improved as well. I don't have a very late version in a Compur #0 they are quite rare, although I do have a very late US made version in a Graphex Compur #1,with excellent coatings. So one lens and a progression of improvements in coatings, and being a Dialyte coatings make a huge difference. The pre 203mm Ektar the uncoated Kodak 203mm f7.7 Anastigmat was never sold here in the UK, Kodak Ltd only sold British made lenses after WWI until they bought Nagel who used initially Schneider lenses becasuse Nagel had split away from Zeiss Ikon.

So maybeearly Multiple layer coatings is that intermeddiate term Just needs some simplicity.

Ian
 
How about something from the late 40's/early 50's like a Voigtlander Vito or Kodak Retina? They should give you the focal length you want and will set you back way less than $100.
 
Have you considered a soft focus portrait type lens? My Pentax 85/2.2 gives a sort of adjustable veiling flare. Might work
and you won't have to sandpaper a lens
 

Push the film and aim the exposure more towards the shadows, I think that will give you the overall look you are going for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register