Non-coated (uncoated?) lens options?

[genotypewriter]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for non-coated (or is it uncoated?) lenses, south of 50mm. Something around 35mm would be ideal. Rangefinder coupling is not necessary. I will be using them for landscapes so, sharpness and contrast are important (although I'm aware that coated lenses are better for contrast).

In short, my questions are:
What were the best of the wide-ish non-coated lenses?
Optionally, what were the best of non-coated lenses, at any focal length?

Thanks for your advice, in advance 🙂

-Guy

 

[HuubL]

I'm only familiar with Leica glass. Like you said, non-coated glass is not the best for present day type of landscape pictures. But, if you, like me, like the classic, soft, glowing, sharp in the center, but less so in the corners type of look, you might like the 35mm Elmar or the 28mm Hektor lenses. The best 50mm would be the pre-war Summitar, I guess. BTW, they're all rangefinder-coupled. I have several pictures in my Gallery here, shot with pre-war glass.

 

[DominikDUK]

Elmar 35mm british photographer James Ravilious (http://www.jamesravilious.com/) used this lens for landscape work and it looks great. The Elmar 35mm was the only uncoated prewar 35mm focal length lens made by Leitz.

The best overall uncoated pre-war lens for the Leica LTM was not made by Leica it's the Zeiss Sonnar in LTM mount.
The best overall lens made by Leica (uncoated) is the Summitar.

 

[furcafe]

Will you be shooting film only? If so, per DominikDUK, the best pre-WWII wide was the 3.5cm/2.8 Zeiss Biogon. It's rare in LTM, but you can get the Contax RF version & a non-focus coupled adapter (it has a huge rear element so may not fit on all modern film & digital bodies). The post-WWII Soviet version (Jupiter-12?) is easy to find in LTM, but is single-coated. For an even dreamier look, the Zeiss 2.8cm/8 Tessar for the Contax RF will also fit your needs; it was never focus-coupled (also no huge rear element to worry about).

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for non-coated (or is it uncoated?) lenses, south of 50mm. Something around 35mm would be ideal. Rangefinder coupling is not necessary. I will be using them for landscapes so, sharpness and contrast are important (although I'm aware that coated lenses are better for contrast).

In short, my questions are:
What were the best of the wide-ish non-coated lenses?
Optionally, what were the best of non-coated lenses, at any focal length?

Thanks for your advice, in advance 🙂

-Guy

 

[genotypewriter]

Thanks for the replies HuubL, DominikDUK and furcafe.

So far on my short list of things to look deeper in to are:
* Pre-war 50 Summitar
* Zeiss Sonnar 50 (f/1.5?)
* Zeiss Biogon 3.5cm f/2.8

I might leave the 35 Elmar and the 2.8/8 Tessar because I am after a more defined look rather than the said dreamy look. Right now I have a KMZ 50/2 in LTM Zip which is nice but it's coated.

I am open to suggestions for lenses from any manufacturer in any rangefinder mount (SLR lenses are too big and I doubt there are any non-coated options anyway).

Thanks again and would like to hear more.

G

 

[furcafe]

If 50s are on the table, then Zeiss also had the 5cm/3.5 & 5cm/2.8 Tessars for the Contax. Sharp stopped down & "dreamier"/glowy wide open. Leitz, of course, had their Elmars (almost same optical formula).

 

[DominikDUK]

Wherever did you get the idea that the Elmar 35mm has a dreamy look it's not a Xenon, but a Tessar. And Tessars are far from dreamy they have problems in the corner but are more contrasty than more complex contemporary design that needed coatings in order to get any kind of contrast.

 

[zuiko85]

The OP's post is confusing.

He wants high definition and at least good contrast but wants to use a 75+ year old uncoated lens.

For standard angle/wide angle landscapes.....on a small negative.

These would seem, on the surface, to be conflicting requirements.

 

[Johann Espiritu]

Voigtlander has a current single-coated 35 Nokton. 🙂

 

[Robert Lai]

To answer your last question, Tessars and Sonnars (modified triplets) were the best of the uncoated lenses. The names are by Zeiss, who originated the designs. The purpose is to reduce the number of air/glass interfaces to a minimum, consistent with minimization of optical aberrations. Leitz also stuck to 4 element designs for most of their lens line (Elmar) in the uncoated era.

An inexpensive uncoated lens which works very well for portraits is the Elmar 9cm f/4. Uncoated, will take an A36 thumbscrew locking hood or 34mm screw in lens hood. It should set you back around $100 in excellent shape. I know that this is opposite to your wide angle desire, but it's worth giving it a try.

 

[shortstop]

To answer your last question, Tessars and Sonnars (modified triplets) were the best of the uncoated lenses. The names are by Zeiss, who originated the designs. The purpose is to reduce the number of air/glass interfaces to a minimum, consistent with minimization of optical aberrations. Leitz also stuck to 4 element designs for most of their lens line (Elmar) in the uncoated era. An inexpensive uncoated lens which works very well for portraits is the Elmar 9cm f/4. Uncoated, will take an A36 thumbscrew locking hood or 34mm screw in lens hood. It should set you back around $100 in excellent shape. I know that this is opposite to your wide angle desire, but it's worth giving it a try.

Elmar 90:4 is in my wishlist for portraiture😎

 

[genotypewriter]

Thanks again for the suggestions everyone. Prefer to hear more about the 35mm range as there are lots of good suggestions already for ~50s.

If I may add, I do have a few Tessars in larger formats and they tend to stay "non-dreamy" inside the typical 60 degree field of coverage at wide apertures. Between 60-80 degrees they do get "dreamy"... but I can only speak for the f/4.5-5.6 designs as that's what I have.

The OP's post is confusing.

He wants high definition and at least good contrast but wants to use a 75+ year old uncoated lens.

For standard angle/wide angle landscapes.....on a small negative.

These would seem, on the surface, to be conflicting requirements.

Unless you're saying that all non-coated lenses are the same, I don't see what's confusing about asking which non-coated lenses are the better ones based on the criteria of sharpness and contrast 🙂

Within the constrains, typically there are solutions... Now if you're curious, rather than confused, about my original post then I can perfectly understand 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

It might be easier if you ignore Leica (did I just type that?) and look at Carl Zeiss' Contax and its 35mm uncoated lenses. And it's not going to be easy to get (body and lens) in good condition first time, unless you are incredibly rich.

The 3,5 cm (35mm) pre-war Elmar is a display item in my little world.

Regards, David

 

[Filzkoeter]

You could try to hunt down an uncoated Biogon in Contax mount and remount (+shim) it into a Jupiter12 mount; should be possible (it is possible with both 5cm Sonnars) 😎

 

[zuiko85]

[Within the constrains, typically there are solutions... Now if you're curious, rather than confused, about my original post then I can perfectly understand 🙂[/QUOTE]]

Yes. I would be curious about what you are trying to achive.

And, if it works out to your expections I would be very curious to see the results.

For landscape on 35mm I'd be more inclined to use short to medium long lenses myself, probably from 85mm to 200mm. I don't like to try and stuff too much information on small negatives. But I have to admit I haven't tried to do landscapes very much.

 

[Dralowid]

So no one mentioned the Summar?

I know others have had great results from the 35mm Elmar but mine was always a disappointment, but then I am a crap photographer.

Summars are cheap, OK so 50mm but plenty of interesting things can happen with one!

 

[Monochrom]

Well your request is quite difficult 🙂

below 50...

the elmar 3.5 cm but the earlier ones

maybe some summaron?

i don´t know if the 28 f6.3...



From about 1946 lenses became coated, even war and prewar stocks were coated after the war.

Societic lenses came to light after the war nand i think alll were coated.
So i think sharp and uncoated :O rare finding!

Good luck!

Let us know when you find it!

 

[charjohncarter]

I had a Summar 50mm (I don't know what year) on a IIIc in 1963. I don't know if it was uncoated, but it had character.

 

[rfaspen]

My summaron is coated and clear (almost no haze to see) and it is hands-down the most flare-prone lens I own, And yes, I have an uncoated Summar too. I just can't imagine how difficult an uncoated 35 elmar would be to use. I base this on the 3.5cm Summaron and Elmar seem to have a similar outward design. Obtaining the correct hood seems wise.

 

[charjohncarter]

My summaron is coated and clear (almost no haze to see) and it is hands-down the most flare-prone lens I own, And yes, I have an uncoated Summar too. I just can't imagine how difficult an uncoated 35 elmar would be to use. I base this on the 3.5cm Summaron and Elmar seem to have a similar outward design. Obtaining the correct hood seems wise.

Lucky you, I wish I had my Summar back. I also have a 35 Serenar which I think is coated, but it has a tendency to haze which cause a glow type of flare. I have to remove the rear element, open the aperture, and clean everything in site about every year.