Do I really need multi-coated optics?

[pete_gregar1]

I have a mamiya 645 system with my longest lens being a 150mm/3.5 "C"

 

I was looking into a longer lens that I can use for outdoor portraits.

I am sure the mamiya 210mm/4.0 is a fine lens, and is within my

budget.

I was looking for something faster, so I can really blur the

background.

 

I have seen some 3rd party 180mm/2.8 lenses. I am aware that I would

need an adapter and have to shot them in stoped down mode. (I really

don't think I would stop down past f4.0 anyway)

 

I have seen different versions of these lenses, with the ones with

multi-coated optics being the more expensive.

 

Is there any reason why I can't get away with single coated optics? I

would always (and I currently always) use a lens shade on the lens.

 

this wouldn't be a wide lens that would be prone to flare.

I have a mamiya 45mm/2.8 lens. I use the shade.. and I always get

flare... I dunno what coating it has..

[eric friedemann]

There is no reason you could not get good images with non-MC optics. A friend had some older Hasselblad lenses that weren't multicoated and he got some superb images. While he did some on-camera color correction with filters for transparencies, he had no problem making slight adjustments for color negative films while printing.

 

Do use lens hoods. Also, my friend acheived markedly better results using multicoated protection filters for general shooting.

[colmmccarthy]

>Do I really need multi-coated optics?

 

Nope, as long as you use hoods to cut down flare.

[george_huczek]

Even with lens hoods, with strong backlighting you will notice a difference with coated and uncoated lenses. For B&W you can compensate for uncoated lenses _to some extent only_ by developing longer and using a higher paper grade, but it will not help to return what was degraded due to flare -- just to bring up the contrast a bit.

 

For colour work, there will be higher contrast in strongly backlit scenes with multicoated lenses.

 

In many situations you probably will not be able to tell weather or not the lens used to take the picture was multicoated.

[andrew_schank]

I had the MC version of the 180mm "3rd party lens" you are referring to, and it was a real dog-very low contrast at any of the wider f stops and it flared readily. I also found the 86mm filter size really handy (sarcasm). By the way, your 150mm at f3.5 should blur the backround out just fine, and is about half the size and weight of that old Jena monster.

[kevin_ing]

Funny... The MC version of that 3rd party 180mm F2.8 lens is probably my favorite lens of all. Great color, great contrast, low flare, beautiful bokeh. Pretty heavy... but then again, I use a tripod for probably 95% of my work, so the weight doesn't bother me.

 

Especially if you are shooting color negative film, I somewhat doubt if you'd be able to tell any difference between the single coated "zebra" lenses and the MC lenses. I usually shoot chromes, so I opted to go with an MC version.

 

86mm filters are hard to come by, though. Fortunately, the lens usually comes with an 86mm/95mm step up ring and 95mm filters are much easier to be had.

 

I do use this 180mm lens on my Mamiya 645 as well. Regardless of political views and old grudges, it makes a fine portrait lens.

[desmond_kidman]

Do you "really need" multi-coated optics?

 

This question would be like the questions:

 

Do I really need medium format? (Well, no one REALLY does!)

 

Do I really need 35mm as opposed to APS?

 

Do I really need more than 1 lens?

 

Do I really need a multi element lens?

 

Do I really need a lens? I saw a great book on Venice using a pinhole camera, maybe that's enough.

 

The fact is, each of the above is a technical step above the previous. MC lenses, all other things being equal, are more vivid, offer greater contrast, have less flare. It depends on your budget and how critical you are about quality. After owning 2 Zeiss single coated lenses, I would never opt for a single coated lens again unless it's all I could really afford. 80 percent of the images were impossible to look at and find a flaw due to non-mc optics. Most of the rest were ok, you could see they would be better with MC. And a few very important images had flaws that had me saying, "So I cart all this stuff here to Europe to get great images, some circumstances being once in a lifetime, and I blew a few by not having the best I could afford?"

[andrew_schank]

Kevin's good experience with the lens compared to mine is a typical consequence of East block lenses--quality controll all over the place. The fellow I bought my stuff told me some of the East German Zeiss lenses could actually be better than the Wesr German Zeiss stuff-or it could be incabable of a decent image at any F stop like mine. You need to ask yourself how lucky you feel before purchasing! I think sometimes the ones you see for sale must mostly be the junk, as people like Kevin tend to hang on to the better ones.

[kevin_ing]

I agree with Andrew on this one. Quality control was/is not the forte of Kiev stuff. CZJ was better, but still not without problems. That plus the fact that these lenses have been around for a while, may have seen hard use, and may even have been disassembled and sloppily reassembled by kitchen table repairmen means that you are taking some chances. While I have disassembled some of my east European lenses, I don't mess with the optical elements unless absolutely necessary.

 

I don't plan on ever selling my CZJ 180mm MC Sonnar. It is too good a lens and produces subtly better results than my Zenzanon 150mm PS lens for my SQ-A. It is definitely my portrait lens of choice.

 

If you are looking at these lenses on eBay, be sure to check the seller's feedback and play it safe. There are reputable dealers who consistently sell high quality goods... and then there are the guys trying to get rich quick.

[art waldschmidt]

Here are some thoughts (and possibly an alternative/heretical view)

concerning the original issue of multi-coating.

I view the coating characteristics of a lens as one aspect of many

which shape the final total character of the optic. The necessary

association of multi-coating with "quality" has been declaimed.

 

If, as for some, the practice of photography is an aspect of technical or scientific work, there can be no recourse but to the

most expensive and most (continually!!) modern optics.

However, when photography is utilized as a medium of personal, artistic, expression, the concept of "quality" becomes far more

complex. It seems in this context, the perception that art is a

function of optical perfection, is an absurdity. It would undoubtedly be enlightening, to view the works of artist-photographers such as Josef Sudek and Albert Rudomine with the

issue of multi-coating in mind.

[struan_gray]

<center><p>

<img src="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/flare01.jpg"

width=400 height=400 vspace=5 hspace=5 alt="Flare">

<img src="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/flare02.jpg"

width=400 height=400 vspace=5 hspace=5 alt="Flair "></p>

<p><i>Flare matters, and doesn't.</i></p>

</center>

 

<p>I use single-coated optics on my Kowa, and of all the niggles

and bothers of using an older, orphan camera system, only flare

truly bugs me. Everything else I can work around, but flare from

in-frame light sources is unavoidable. It ruins some images,

and hardly affects others (see above), but the worst thing is that it

doesn't show up very clearly in the viewfinder, so I never really

know its there until it's too late to do anything about it.</p>

[kornelius_j._fleischer]

Struan, at Zeiss, we have put a lot of efforts into researching the phenomenon of flare in recent year. Flare plagues all fields of imaging, be it amateur, professional, cinematography, analogue and digital. We are active in all these fields and therefore heavily affected.

 

An important conclusion we found is this: At least 50 % of all objectionable flare related problems are caused by the camera body interiors, not the lens: Light passing the lens hits the inner walls of the camera, bouces off from there and reaches the film. Typical situations are bright light sources being imaged at or just slighty outside the frame. If the image content in the neighborhood is bright like a sky, you may not notice the flare at all. But if it is dark, the flare will show up very unpleasantly. Your images are good examples of this situation: One (the church interior) is heavily affected, the other one (town at night), probably taken with the same lens, contains no very bright light source at the edges that would flare into the frame.

 

As an outcome of these findings we discussed consequences with our camera makers, which led to the situation that newer cameras from Hasselblad and Contax (made after 1996) are much better than older ones in terms of flare suppression. And so are newer Zeiss lenses. The flare reduction findings we made led to introducing the new generation of CFi (i = improved) and CFE lenses for Hasselblad at photokina 1998. The new flare reduction measures in both camera and lenses are more powerful than going from single layer coating to multi layer coating. The combination of all measures is what you should ideally apply if you take photos. Because the most precious ingredient of this activity is not equipment or film, it is your time and effort. Are not your time and effort utilised best by using dependable no-poor-compromise tools?

[victor_randin]

I know many photographers who are/were happy shooting with CZJ Sonnar 180mm f2.8 in both MC and single coated versions fitted through adapters on various cameras and a M645. This is East Germany Carl Zeiss� version of the famous Olympic Sonnar but cheaper and still very good lens except for reliability of aperture mechanics. I couldn�t find a sufficient difference between them when tested both some years ago. Of course, the MC version is some better in contrast and color rendition, produces less flare and not so bright <ghosts>. As far as Mamya�s quality of multicoating © goes I couldn�t say it�s much better than CZJ�s quality of single coating. In 1980 I had owned the 1000S with the C-marked lenses: 80mm f1.9, the 80mm f2.8, the 45mm f2.8, the 150mm f3.5 and appraised them as second-rate lenses, IMHO.

[struan_gray]

Kornelius, I suspect your final question was rhetorical, but I'll

answer it for my personal case anyway.

 

Flare is very important to me: it washes out the gorgeous

delicate colours of the arctic winter and it spoils interior shots of

old buildings like the one I showed. It also can ruin backlit

portraits, which since I'm fond of posing my kids in front of white

sheets and blankets also affects me. I hate it, and I wish that

reviewers and other testers made more fuss about it.

 

But, but but. I am an amateur and cannot morally justify the price

of modern high-end MF gear. I could afford it, but the opportunity

costs are real. I did lose some shots in Toledo, but I can go

back many times for the cost of one Zeiss lens, and for me the

experience of being there is more important than taking perfect

photographs.

 

Were I setting up a business I would undoubtedly opt for the best

of the best. I do so when specifiying lenses for my research, and

it will no doubt gladden your heart to know that I regularly use a

Zeiss 'optic' that cost cool million dollars or so. But people like

myself - and, I suspect, Pete Gregar - have to make choices, and

quantifying what you give up is more useful than insisting that

only the best will do.

 

Could you comment on the general nature of the improvements

made to the camera bodies. Was it structures like baffles or

grooving that made the most difference, or improvements in the

surface finish? Would a can of paint, a No. 00 brush, and a

Sunday afternoon make a difference to my existing body, or do

the improvements have to be integrated with the camera's

manufacture?

[pete_gregar1]

I currently own the mamiya 45mm/2.8 80mm/1.9 150mm/3.5

 

All three of the lenses are sharp and provide good contrast.

The 45mm/2.8 is very prone to flare.. (sun hitting the front element)

 

I always use a lens shade, but I still have some shots that are ruined from the flare.

 

How would the 180mm/2.8 compare to the 150mm/3.5 in terms of contrast?

[david_goldfarb]

On that score, I've found that black lens flocking can improve metal or hard plastic lens shades that only have black paint or black surfaces inside.

 

I've also flocked the inside of the helical of the Kodak 100mm/3.5 Medalist Ektar, which I adapted for 35mm use, and saw a visible improvement in contrast. I don't have any before and after comparison shots made under identical conditions with the same film, alas, but these shots are before flocking:

 

http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/medalist/

 

and this one is after:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/647354&size=lg

 

I know some people have flocked the Kiev mirror boxes, which were known to produce unwanted reflections.

[david_goldfarb]

That was meant as a response to Struan's last post.

[struan_gray]

David, did you use some sort of flocking material, or a paint?

[victor_randin]

Pete,

 

I don�t vote East Germany�s and Kiev�s lenses (CZJena�s, Meyer�s, Arsat), but some of them are very good in MC versions:

the Sonnar 180mm f2.8 MC, the Biometar 120mm f2.8 MC, the Biometar 80mm f2.8 MC (Jena's version of famous Planar), and the Flektogon 50mm f4.0 MC- from CZJena;

 

the Jupiter-36 (Arsat) 250mm f3.5, the Kaleinar (Arsat) 150mm f2.8, Mir shift 55mm f 3.5 (4.0?) (sorry, dont remember code number) � from Kiev �Arsenal Works�, all are single coated.

Price : $50-150.

 

If you have the adapter Pentacon/Mamya645 you could compare any of above mentioned lens to Mamya's ones. I am sure that the CZJ Sonnar 180mm f2.8 MC beats the 150/3.5 C.

 

Regards.Victor.

[david_goldfarb]

Struan, I used black flocking paper. Edmund Scientific sells it at www.scientificsonline.com both with and without adhesive backing (I'm sure in your line of work, you have your own sources!). I bought the non-adhesive kind and applied it with Pliobond. The non-adhesive sheets are also handy for tabletop photos where you want a completely black background.

[victor_randin]

I also covered mirror boxes of all my Hasselblad�s with flacking black paper clued with natural india-rubber clue many years ago. Since I can shoot the sun with no any flare, though all the lenses I use are T*-marked.

However I am afraid that covering of Mamya� mirror box scarcely does improve the flare control of the 45mm lens.

[alberto pastorelli]

In my experience, some of the best MF lenses are from CZJ.

For example, the 300mm f/4 Sonnar MC is a wonderful lens both mechanically and optics.

I use it, with an adapter, on my Pentax 645N, loosing the autofocus (but with focus confirmation in the viewfinder)and working in stop-down mode.

I can also use it with the Pentax teleconverters (both 1.4x and 2x) with great quality results...

By the way, the 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar MC is even slightly better...

regards

[pensacolaphoto]

" ... but some of them are very good in MC versions: the Sonnar 180mm f2.8 MC, the Biometar 120mm f2.8 MC, the Biometar 80mm f2.8 MC (Jena's version of famous Planar), and the Flektogon 50mm f4.0 MC- from CZJena; "

 

I agree. I use several CZ Jena lenses, and I am happy with their optical performance. The Pentacon 6 mount is very versatile, as it allows me to use those lenses (with adapters) on medium format and 35mm cameras. For example, I use the CZ Jena MC 180mm/2.8 lens on a Canon T90, and I get very sharp images since I am using on ly the middle part of the lens (which is sharpest).

[bruce_fichelson]

I own Leica lenses, pre-War and modern and so uncoated and multi-coated and the former produce a marvelous, almost an out-of-time effect. However, for contemporary, everything in focus, outdoor landscape work, no question I'd always opt for modern multi-coatings. I do own the CZJ 180 and I do love it. Flare is very controllable and since I also own the Mamiya 105-210mm AF zoom, I can always use that if I have any doubts in a particular lighting situation. Given the choice, it is more important to spend the money on the multi-coated lens and the more modern, the better in general. Optics have simply progressed too far not to take advantage of the best one can afford.By the way, I highly recommend Mamiya medium format. They were designed for pro work and so they are on a higher level than a Mamiya 35mm system from a few years back. Same with Pentax. Besides, if Mamiya is good enough for Art Wolfe.....

 

Bruce Fichelson