Coated vs uncoated lens?

[minicoop1985]

Just a pretty general question here. Has anyone shot color film in a camera with an uncoated lens? What were the results like? I'm debating on which lens to use on my little Robot once the parts arrive (the coated lens has some minor fungus, but not enough to affect IQ).

 

[SoulfulRecover]

an uncoated lens with have a lot more flare issues so a lens hood would help a lot. The image wont have as much contrast either and some people claim that in daylight, the image has cool tones.

 

[minicoop1985]

Well, I can test the two of them side by side to test that theory (the cool tones). I have a feeling I'll end up using the uncoated white triangle Schneider more than the red triangle Schneider since the white's in better shape.

 

[limr]

Just a pretty general question here. Has anyone shot color film in a camera with an uncoated lens? What were the results like? I'm debating on which lens to use on my little Robot once the parts arrive (the coated lens has some minor fungus, but not enough to affect IQ).

Buzz shoots Ektar in his uncoated Rolleiflex and it's gorgeous.
The Count Trossi Mercedes
3Oct2014-3-11_Modified_Border
3Nov2013-1-07_Modified_Border

 

[minicoop1985]

Maybe I'll just stick with the white triangle lens for now. Been using it most of this roll.

 

[petrochemist]

Uncoated lenses reflect 4% at each air glass surface. A single coating can reduce that about five to ten fold, multicoating is better still.
Most lenses will have at least 6 air/glass surfaces, modern ones usually have more (even many more).
The cumulative effect is significant, 6 uncoated surfaces is enough to reduce the image forming light to little over 3/4 of what reaches the lens.

 

[compur]

Yeah, uncoated lenses are worthless. Especially Schneiders. Nobody ever took a decent photo before lens coating was invented. They're only good as dog toys and drain plugs. I'll take yours off your hands. I have a doberman that likes to chew on them.

 

[john.margetts]

Just a pretty general question here. Has anyone shot color film in a camera with an uncoated lens? What were the results like? I'm debating on which lens to use on my little Robot once the parts arrive (the coated lens has some minor fungus, but not enough to affect IQ).

I have shot colour film with an uncoated, not colour corrected lens with good results. Lens:Voigtlander Skopar. Camera:Voigtlander Vito I (1945)

 

[minicoop1985]

Yeah, uncoated lenses are worthless. Especially Schneiders. Nobody ever took a decent photo before lens coating was invented. They're only good as dog toys and drain plugs. I'll take yours off your hands. I have a doberman that likes to chew on them.

lol.

 

[cgw]

Intelligently shot(an obvious challenge for some), they're fine. A lens hood, flare-excluding light placement, and a sense of scene contrast cut the odds for problems. Things like fungus, element separation and haze are way bigger worries with older glass.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

They tend to work better with film than digital. CA shows itself more readily with a sensor from the RGB all being on the same level. Film has layers which accommodates the differing wavelengths to some extent. Shoot away and see what you get. Of course like any other unknown avoid using it on critical need work. Have fun you may be surprised and pleased at what you get.

 

[Watchful]

Other factors will have a far greater impact on the image captured than if the lens has a coating or not under most conditions, the exception being strong direct back-lighting, or solar illumination directly hitting across the lens surface, both of which can be easily avoided.
Use what you like and set up your shots according to what you use.

 

[Watchful]

Just a pretty general question here. Has anyone shot color film in a camera with an uncoated lens? What were the results like? I'm debating on which lens to use on my little Robot once the parts arrive (the coated lens has some minor fungus, but not enough to affect IQ).

I have shot colour film with an uncoated, not colour corrected lens with good results. Lens:Voigtlander Skopar. Camera:Voigtlander Vito I (1945)

This is not the best example of a good result imo.

 

[john.margetts]

Just a pretty general question here. Has anyone shot color film in a camera with an uncoated lens? What were the results like? I'm debating on which lens to use on my little Robot once the parts arrive (the coated lens has some minor fungus, but not enough to affect IQ).

I have shot colour film with an uncoated, not colour corrected lens with good results. Lens:Voigtlander Skopar. Camera:Voigtlander Vito I (1945)

This is not the best example of a good result imo.

Not a brilliant picture artistically - but no flare (the avoidance of which is the main point of coating lenses) and no apparent colour aberration from an old non-colour-corrected lens. Same camera/lens:

 

[Tim Tucker]

Uncoated lenses reflect 4% at each air glass surface. A single coating can reduce that about five to ten fold, multicoating is better still.
Most lenses will have at least 6 air/glass surfaces, modern ones usually have more (even many more).
The cumulative effect is significant, 6 uncoated surfaces is enough to reduce the image forming light to little over 3/4 of what reaches the lens.

A single surface or density change will reflect 4% of the light. But multiple surfaces are NOT a cumulative total. Multiple surfaces will reflect between 0-16%. I know this sounds odd and counter intuitive but the maths that predicts it was worked out by Richard Feynman and it's been tested and found to be correct, in fact modern lens coatings are designed with it. The total of the reflected light through modern lenses can be less than 4%, and in uncoated lenses it can be as much as 16% (not including scratches ).

Just a pretty general question here. Has anyone shot color film in a camera with an uncoated lens? What were the results like?

I use a Ziess Tessar circa 1910 on my half plate at times. The lens is incredibly susceptible to flare. You have to be very careful not to let any stray light hit the surface of the glass, and I mean really careful. It's a little more than just a lens hood, it has to be in shadow or you'll have problems. I've only ever shot B&W with it and generally with an orange or yellow filter.

The flare though does give it one remarkable property. The level of flare when you're being really careful is just around the threshold sensitivity of 80ASA film. What this effectively does is pre-sensitise the film meaning any further light that hits the film has enough energy to cause a reaction, and this gives it an ability to record a remarkable amount of shadow detail. For instance: