Do uncoated lenses influence your choice of film ?

[Luddite Frank]

This past week, I went through about 800 photos, taken over the last six months, choosing about 3 dozen shots to document a project at work.

Nearly all these photos were shot with my user RF kit, consisting of a 1934 Leica III, and 35mm uncoated Elmar lens(1940)

All photos were of the same subject ( a building), facing south-east, and the exposures were usually made between mid-morning and late afternoon.

The majority of the photos were shot on Kodacolor 200 print film. A few rolls were Fujicolor, 200 and 400 ISO.

I struck by the difference in color rendition between the Kodak and Fuji films, the Fuji generally having more vivid color and perhaps more contrast; the Kodacolor having weak contrast / muted colors.


I have read / been told that uncoated lenses generally produce lower-contrast images, as well as tending to "flare".

That said, are there certain types / speeds of film that produce better color / more contrast with uncoated lenses ?


A good friend who is an excellent photographer says he does not care for Fuji color film; he feels it is "too vivid, too cold; somewhat artificial"... he also shoots modern gear with multi-coated lenses.


This has piqued my curiosity, as the only variable that's really changed during this photo project has been the film itself; the gear, processing, subject have all remained the same.

Any thoughts ?


Luddite Frank

 

[Rob-F]

Uncoated lenses influence my choice of lenses. I've tried a couple (Elmar, Summar). The effect is different, all right, but I soon tired of it. I did a few Leica Glow shots and I was done. Coated lenses for me, thanks.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Okay, I'll give this topic a little bump...


So, pursuing my little theory that certain color films given more rewarding results with un-coated lenses, I have bought some more Fujicolor 200, to shoot with my uncoated Elmar 35, trying to duplicate shots taken with the same rig using Kodacolor 200, and compare the results.

I have not yet experimented with the 100 ISO Kodak / Fuji films.


I realize the advantages of coated lenses, am not debating that aspect... am curious about how different films respond to uncoated lenses.

Regards,

LF

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

that is an interesting topic I have been wondering too.

 

[Ronald M]

Uncoated produce less saturated, shorter tonal range, less shadow detail, blocked highlights, compared to a coated lens on any given film.

Films have different design goals. Many consumer films make vivid punchy colors, others a bit less. Profesional films have normal contrast and natural colors. Take your pick

You can not make up what a coated lens looses by using a oversaturated consumer film.
Use them for the effect they produce when you want that, otherwise use a coated lens.

There is a big jump in quality to a single coated lens and the jump to a multicoated lens from there is smaller.

 

[Rayt]

Yes I match the film with the lens. Uncoated and single coated lenses are for b/w, multicoated lenses for color and ultra sharp, high contrast apo asph lenses for digital.

 

[furcafe]

Per what Ronald M wrote, the film & lenses are 2 separate variables, so I think you will just have to continue to experiment until you find a combo(s) that works for you. For me, I usually pick the film 1st (which I try to match w/the type of lighting, subject matter, etc.) & then let that influence the choice of lenses.

However, while using an uncoated lens w/a highly saturated film (e.g., Velvia) won't be the equivalent of using a standard or portrait film w/a coated lens, the combination can still give an interesting look.

 

[Luddite Frank]

Thanks for the responses !

Ronald M - "You can not make up what a coated lens looses by using a oversaturated consumer film.
Use them for the effect they produce when you want that, otherwise use a coated lens."

That's what I needed to hear.

Thanks !

LF