Do uncoated lenses influence your choice of film ?

Luddite Frank

Well-known
Local time
7:23 AM
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
1,473
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Back
Top Bottom