gb hill
Veteran
What's better for b&w, coated or uncoated lenses?...or does it even matter at all? What are some favorite lenses to use with b&w film?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I love uncoated lenses, though in some conditions the flare can ruin a photo. These were made with a Rolleiflex Automat from 1938, uncoated 75mm f3.5 Tessar.
In situations where there's no backlighting, the lower image contrast is easily compensated for by using a higher contrast paper in the darkroom, developing the film a little longer, or raising contrast a bit in photoshop.
In situations where there's no backlighting, the lower image contrast is easily compensated for by using a higher contrast paper in the darkroom, developing the film a little longer, or raising contrast a bit in photoshop.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Truly uncoated lenses -- not just single-coated -- have much lower contrast, more flare, and poorer shadow differentiation (because of the flare).
Yes, I have a few uncoated lenses, and the bigger the format, the better they work, but with 35mm, the only uncoated lens I habitually use is my 1938 Thambar -- which is soft and flary anyway, because it's a soft-focus lens. In larger formats I quite like my 165mm f/6.8 Dagor on 13x18 cm/5x7 inch and my 21 inch (533mm) f/7.7 Ross on 8x10 inch.
Also, of course, a vast amount depends on the subject and the lighting.
Cheers,
R.
Yes, I have a few uncoated lenses, and the bigger the format, the better they work, but with 35mm, the only uncoated lens I habitually use is my 1938 Thambar -- which is soft and flary anyway, because it's a soft-focus lens. In larger formats I quite like my 165mm f/6.8 Dagor on 13x18 cm/5x7 inch and my 21 inch (533mm) f/7.7 Ross on 8x10 inch.
Also, of course, a vast amount depends on the subject and the lighting.
Cheers,
R.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Roger those I posted were with a truly uncoated lens.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Chris,
Yes, sure, and very well they work. I have some pics taken with a 1930s Voigtländer TLR that I like too, even in colour. But as I said, a vast amount depends on subject matter and lighting.
Cheers,
R.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
In those it seems at least as much the Tessar at work as the fact that they're uncoated.
Compensating for lower contrast takes much of the point out of the uncoated lens, though. You can also shoot using a coated lens and compensate for the higher contrast image using the same techniques you outline. So all in all I think it doesn't really matter, and uncoated lenses in 35mm seem to be overrated. Colour rendition is another matter, but one the OP isn't interested in.
The soft look can just as well be achieved using a piece of glass in front of the lens. Slightly scratch it, or put a thin layer of vaseline on it.
Like anything, it depends on the particular design and condition of the lens, lighting, subject, and personal taste.
and to really confuse things, many of the uncoated lenses that I have worked on have a beautiful "Bloom" to them, which acts as a coating. "Blooming" is a result of the lens being exposed to air, and is a natural process. The development of lens coating was originally the process to replicate the effect of blooming.
and to really confuse things, many of the uncoated lenses that I have worked on have a beautiful "Bloom" to them, which acts as a coating. "Blooming" is a result of the lens being exposed to air, and is a natural process. The development of lens coating was originally the process to replicate the effect of blooming.
gb hill
Veteran
I guess there are not many uncoated lenses since the 1930's. I have an elmer 50/3.5 & acording to the serial # made in 1945. I suspect it's a single coated lens. When looking at it any coating is hard to see unlike my later lenses which are multicoated. Does anyone know when Leitz started coating lenses? I've heard of uncoated elmers.
gb hill
Veteran
Oh! & BTW Chris those portrait shots look great. Has a nice retro look to them.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Love that first one, Chris. Excellent catch.
I love the lower contrast look from uncoated lenses. It's especially nice, to me, in color - Reala behind an uncoated Tessar or f2 Sonnar gets almost an intense pastel look to it. I'm going to have to find a cheap uncoated prewar 50/2 Sonnar & get Brian to put it in a J8 shell sometime.
William
I love the lower contrast look from uncoated lenses. It's especially nice, to me, in color - Reala behind an uncoated Tessar or f2 Sonnar gets almost an intense pastel look to it. I'm going to have to find a cheap uncoated prewar 50/2 Sonnar & get Brian to put it in a J8 shell sometime.
William
Last edited by a moderator:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Most B&W shooters prefer single coated glass for B&W. It brings out more details in the dark zones. This is the reason the Summicron V1 gets such a high premium.