SC vs. MC in CV glass

[mike goldberg]

Hi,

Could someone explain the advantages and disadvantages of the SC:MC debate in lenses. I read that the SC versions are "creamier" and provide better shadow detail in B/W.

Thanks, Mike

 

[kb244]

SC MC = Single Coated, Multi Coated.

Multicoated helps reduce flare and glare, and often times to help color film get a better color, but usually at the sacrifice of contrast and sharpness. The Single Coated version (which can be one of the number of reasons why people like the old single coat, or non coated lens), give some degree of coating for anti-flare/glare, but at the same time doesnt coat enough to take away from contrast/sharpness/etc. Though the MC may be better for use with color film, which is why they market the SC to B&W shooters ( Since there seems to be enough of a market to warrent cutting back on the coating).

Think of it like this.

Polarizers and Circular Polarizers. Linear Polarizers actually do a much better job than a CPL, the CPL basically sacrifices the strength of the polarizer in order to aid in being used on an autofocus camera. So older tech may be more desirable when used appropiately, newer stuff sometimes is made that way as a compensation while risking a trade-off.

In short, I'd imagine that the single coat does not boost up the contrast quite as much as the multi coated version, and as such may give it a 'creamier' or flatter appearance especially in B&W.

 

[ferider]

I am using both for a while now, Mike.

Frankly I think its marketing hype boosted by internet rumours.
I see no difference in lens behavior, either in terms of resolution
or contrast.

Roland.

 

[alexz]

SC MC = Single Coated, Multi Coated.

Multicoated helps reduce flare and glare, and often times to help color film get a better color, but usually at the sacrifice of contrast and sharpness. The Single Coated version (which can be one of the number of reasons why people like the old single coat, or non coated lens), give some degree of coating for anti-flare/glare, but at the same time doesnt coat enough to take away from contrast/sharpness/etc. Though the MC may be better for use with color film, which is why they market the SC to B&W shooters ( Since there seems to be enough of a market to warrent cutting back on the coating).

Think of it like this.

Polarizers and Circular Polarizers. Linear Polarizers actually do a much better job than a CPL, the CPL basically sacrifices the strength of the polarizer in order to aid in being used on an autofocus camera. So older tech may be more desirable when used appropiately, newer stuff sometimes is made that way as a compensation while risking a trade-off.

In short, I'd imagine that the single coat does not boost up the contrast quite as much as the multi coated version, and as such may give it a 'creamier' or flatter appearance especially in B&W.

Mike, there are something in what is said above, though I'd probably slightly disagree and would try to make a purely theoretical assumption:
Multicoating is aimed to reduce flare substantially at particular wavelengths say, for 3, 4, 5 ot 7 colors, but never for all), thereby increasing the contrast conveyed by the lens. This is the benefit allowing higher contrast (and often higher percieved sharpness rendering small details) and saturated colors in color photography.
However, once applying that to a pure B&W, often we'd like somewhat muted contrast transmission through the lens, allowing probably marginally (or more) larger tonality scale to reach the film.
This is my non-scientific take on that MC vs CS issue, but probably in practice, applying to the particular design, this is more of marketign hype indeed as Roland advised...

 

[rich815]

I used the 40/1.4 S.C for a little while and frankly could not really see much of any difference from other lenses. I bought it based on the hype of being better for B&W and a more "classic" look and frankly found my 50/2 Summicron DR and 50/2.8 Elmar-M gave just a nice if not better B&W renditions that I desired (sharp but without too much contrast, nice creaminess, etc.).

 

[kb244]

If I didn't say "in theory" then I should have, because most the time it doesn't seem to make a huge heck of a difference. I just stated why they would have said one or the other.