Which is for you S.C. or M.C.?

Which is for you S.C. or M.C.?

  • Total voters
    77
M

mdspace

Established
Local time
2:27 AM
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
142
After some years, with many reviews, I was wondering...

If you will buy a Nokton Classic 35mm or 40mm, which option is for you S.C. or M.C.?

Can you share your experience with these options pls.
 
Both my 35 and 40 Noktons are S.C. so it's a bit hard to compare the effect. But the 40 is certainly prone to showing veiling flare with backlight. My 2/50 Heliar is much more resistant to that. Some who are undoubtedly more perceptive than I prefer that bit of flare as a classic look, while I only notice it when it slaps me in the eye. :)

Suggest a search of our RFF gallery for samples with those lenses...
 
Bought the SC 40mm as a lens with a gentle tonality.

PointReyesCoastDawn-1.jpg
 
dc.watch.impress did a comparison a few years ago between sc and mc 40mm noktons. The difference between them was absolutely negligible. I think the only time you'd see it would be in strong backlit scenarios. Still so cool they offer both.
 
gavinlg said:
dc.watch.impress did a comparison a few years ago between sc and mc 40mm noktons. The difference between them was absolutely negligible. I think the only time you'd see it would be in strong backlit scenarios. Still so cool they offer both.
Click to expand...
Why am I not astonished by this?

Cheers,

R.
 
And we know the M.C. and S.C. are identical other than the coating? So multicoating is just marketing hype?
 
I have one of each. Very little difference between them.

The only thing that shows up is that the SC renders slightly more green, the MC slightly more magenta. But this only shows as a few points difference using a digital densitometer, hardly noticeable to the naked eye.
 
I chose the MC, touted to have more contrast and of course I feel I can see it in the samples in that thread.
 
I bought a multi coated Voigtlander 40mm but only because it was second hand and it was the only version on offer at the time. I think I should have preferred the single coated one as I tend to prefer classic rendering (though I am not altogether sure how much coating alone affects this I would have been tempted). By the way "Frozen in Time" your image is a beauty, an absolute stunner. Never the less the MC one produces very nice images too, if possibly different in rendering ..........see below.

I can say that I shot Pentax M42 Takumar lenses of various vintages over the years, most of them being single coated and the single coating does demand extra care in backlit circumstances. This is something to be aware of.


Fiefy by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
peterm1 said:
I bought a multi coated Voigtlander 40mm but only because it was second hand and it was the only version on offer at the time. I think I should have preferred the single coated one as I tend to prefer classic rendering (though I am not altogether sure how much coating alone affects this I would have been tempted). By the way "Frozen in Time" your image is a beauty, an absolute stunner. Never the less the MC one produces very nice images too, if possibly different in rendering ..........see below.

I can say that I shot Pentax M42 Takumar lenses of various vintages over the years, most of them being single coated and the single coating does demand extra care in backlit circumstances. This is something to be aware of.

Fiefy by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I bought the SC version of the 40mm for the same reason. While I have never noticed veiing to be a special issue, I have shot this lens primarily with b/w and find it a bit more contrasty than I would like, regardless of the "lesser" coating. More like a 35mm skopar than a vintage canon / leica etc.
 
I went with the multicoated 40. I felt that the flare-reducing ability of multicoating would outweigh the benefits of single coating, if any.
 
If you look at the book, this is what the SC does:

r4-Scan-091121-0008b-X2.jpg


In most normal light situations, there is no difference between MC and SC. These days, on my 240, I use an S.C. 35, with the hope that it makes it a little easier to push the shadows in post, if ever necessary.

Roland.
 
If "Leica Glow" in b&w is your thing, get the SC. In my opinion, the SC in either 35 or 40mm produces that effect every bit as well as the King of Leica Glow, the 1,5/50 Summarit. And perhaps even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom