Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM Lenses

Subject: Re: [OM] OM Lenses
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:54:05 +0000
At 21:30 8/14/01, Dr. Sherpa wrote (in part):
I only told them that Zuiko lenses are compact, fast, good optics in general
and good construction. The nikon friends told me that had one big problem
Multi Coating...

What can I say ???

1. All a multi-coating does is broaden the improvment in light transmission through the glass across the visible spectrum. In particular, it improves the transmission at blue and red ends of the visible spectrum to make it more even. A single-coating is centered (somewhere around yellow-green) and works as well as a multi-coating mid-spectrum, but falls off some in efficiency at the red and blue ends.

2. The first order effect of lens coatings is improved contrast with better light transmission through the lens. Only under certain lighting conditions with a bright light source forward of and illuminating the front lens element does it become a flare issue. Unless you're using super-wides, or have a strong proclivity for back-lighting, this does not happen that often.

3. That first coating makes an enormous difference compared to zero coating, especially on a prime lens with no more than 5 to 7 elements. If you ever have a chance to handle pre-war vintage gear, much of it with only 4 or 5 element prime lenses, you can tell a huge difference.

4. Multi-coating only makes a very minor incremental improvement over a single coating, especially on prime lenses. The efficacy of a single coating is also affected by the refractive index of the glass used. Higher index glass, as is often used in the better Zuiko's, decreases the gain made over single coating by going to a multi-coating.

5. I'll stack my mint-minus, ca. 1954 **single-coated** 50mm f/1.5 Carl Zeiss Sonnar with its 7 element, 3 group formulation that was created in 1932, against anything multi-coated they can muster from Can*n, Nik*n, Pent*x, or Min*lta, in contrast, sheer resolving power, flatness of field, flare control and absence of pincushion or barrel distortion. All I ask is being able to run it at f/2 or tighter and to use a lens hood; they can do the same. I'll even use it on a 50 year old rangefinder body. [Note that the 5/4 formulation used for the 40mm f/2.8 Sonnar HFT for the Rollei 35 is very, very similar, but not identical.]

6. Finally, it's not what you have, it's how you *use* it that counts. When someone starts harping on how much better gear they have, that's the time to shift it to who the better photographer is by asking to compare portfolios of their best photographs. That's the bottom line.

Hope this helps understand it better. I wouldn't waste too much time arguing the issue with them. Focus instead on making good photographs!

-- John


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz