Leica LTM Show us you photographs made with uncoated lenses

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
246572411_3be5ab3c75_z.jpg
[/url] bridge by rbiemer, on Flickr[/IMG]

1937 9cm/f4 Elmar
 
Taken using Zeiss Super Ikonta C | 10.5cm f4.5 uncoated Tessar Lens | wide open | Tmax400 | Tmax developer
4867769156_37c298d887_z.jpg


The Flare thru' the eye of MF rangefinder - Super Ikonta C uncoated Tessar Lens
4867769734_bcc65754ef_z.jpg
 
if you've watched the James Ravillious documentary film you may have noticed that they made a big thing of him building lens hoods to stop flare. But then they say he used uncoated lenses because they reduced contrast. But lenses are coated to stop flare which reduces contrast. So why do people want uncoated lenses? They reduce contrast by introducing more flare which fogs the film. You'll never get black blacks with flare unless you under expose. That's not to say you won't get good results but uncoated lenses are much more prone to flare if lighting is against you.
 
Last edited:
1941 elmar f4, uncoated

1941 elmar f4, uncoated

what a small lens, but with amazing performance 70 years after manufacture.

greetings from hamburg

rick
 
CZJ 5cm 1.5:

210946-R1-01-1A.jpg


982178-R1-20-21sm.jpg


I have Rolleiflex TLRs with coated lenses, so I bought an older Rollei with CZJ lens, but it is broken, and I was told that a repair would be too costly. I wonder if Brian could transplant the lens into a shell for RF use somehow?
 
Thank you Leica Tom and Shyoon!I love my old Rollei, even though it's tendency to flare ruins shots sometimes. Fair trade, I guess, when the one's that do come out have such a pleasant look.
 
Some great photos here. Makes one wonder why anyone would like to spend big money on a new camera or lens. I got my Leica IIIa with 50/3.5 Elmar (not a museum piece, but very decent shape) for little more than a cup of fancy coffee.
 
tlitody said:
if you've watched the James Ravillious documentary film you may have noticed that they made a big thing of him building lens hoods to stop flare. But then they say he used uncoated lenses because they reduced contrast. But lenses are coated to stop flare which reduces contrast. So why do people want uncoated lenses? They reduce contrast by introducing more flare which fogs the film. You'll never get black blacks with flare unless you under expose. That's not to say you won't get good results but uncoated lenses are much more prone to flare if lighting is against you.
Click to expand...

Quite right, but look at his photos, a lot of them are contre-jour. If you didn't have a sizeable lens hood, coated or uncoated, I think many of them would be a complete mess.

Lens hoods reduce the sort of direct flare that can obliterate an entire picture. But an uncoated lens, uncoated surfaces throughout, still has that veiling flare. So you get these muddy midtones, lack of contrast in the shadows, and creamy highlights. Many people -- obviously Mr Ravillious -- love the tonality that you can get. And have you seen his work? Certainly can't fault him for it.

I love the look in black and white, and in colour the results can be even more interesting, with soft pastel colours. That's why people like an uncoated lens or two in their kit, I suppose.

Of course veiling flare can sometimes overwhelm. I have a 1930s Rolleicord I with a badly scratched-up Zeiss Triotar 75/3.8 fitted. Here's an example where veiling flare reduced contrast to nothing (shooting wide open on an old triplet doesn't help either), but I still find the tonality appealing somehow.

I was keen to try this camera with colour, and loaded up a roll of Ektacolor 160 today. Unfortunately somewhere along the way it poozed a shutter blade, so I might have to wait :(
 
Last edited:

Contax IIIa + 53mm f/1.8 Helios



Zeiss Super Ikonta B + 8cm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar



CV Bessa-R + 50mm f/2 Summar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom