Single Coated vs Multi Coated

[stevelindqvist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I would like to buy a lens for my digital camera and have the choice to buy a single or multi coated lens.
My internet research resulted in the following (and always the same statements):

Single Coated = flatter look, less contrast, strong flares, recommended for black-and-white photography

Multi Coated = stronger colors, more contrast, low flares, recommended for color photography

What I can't find anywhere at all is an A/B comparison, same lens, same subject, one SC, one MC. Is there such a thing somewhere to see?

As I mainly use "focus peaking", the "contrast" of an MC lens would probably suit me, on the other hand I like a flat look very much and wouldn't say no to an SC lens either. There have been opinions that an SC lens looks more like analog photography because the colors are not that saturated.

Are there any "experiences" or does anyone know some place with a visual A/B comparison?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[a.noctilux]

Hello Welcome here Steve,

The coating in a lens is only part of the equations of the "rendering", not as simple as that "more or less contrast".

I saw only Voigtlander Nokton lenses which come in SC and MC in M mount.

 

History wise:

In the past, Asahi Pentax had some lenses in "SC" then SMC later on.

Zeiss had T for old lense in LTM and T* but I think only T* (MC) in ZM .

Canon lenses also existed in "SC" and SSC.

To say with my experiences on lenses :

- Leica lenses even MC don't "say it" on the specifications or lens ID, so very difficult to know

- I think that the Noctilux 1.2/50 has some MC elements (but never documented as such), in Leitz litterature they refer to "incorporated hood inside" (or something like that)

for this excellent and scarse/ very expensive lens

- Leica lenses (as Canon ) are coated for specific properties (color transmission is one of them) , so some lens elements are multicoated and some singlecoated

- I don't have experiences of SC/MC with one lens type but I can say that I don't choose a lens only for that SC/MC coating

 

- As usual, try by yourself to have opinion on your favorite subjects/lighting with whatever lens you want/need

 

This read may help

Edited July 26, 2019 by a.noctilux

[convexferret]

Steve. The above are generalisations. I, for example,  prefer older single coated lenses for colour work. Note also that coatings have developed enormously over the past 70-80 years and its perfectly possible that a multi-coated lens from the 60s will behave very differently from a more modern lens of similar design. Lastly, the difference between such lenses is often only visible under certain lighting conditions and you can often compensate in one direction or the other with a touch on the contrast slider.  You'll have much better luck just trying things for yourself.

[Jon Glass]

Is this about the new Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 Nokton Classic II that just came out?  I was having a similar debate with myself over that lens.

I haven't fully decided, but my thought process led me to the conclusion that the single coated version would give me the flexibility to achieve that classic, low contrast look, while supplementing it with filters will give me the option to increase contrast as necessary.  I also kinda like lens flares, so that factored in.

[a.noctilux]

As side note to Steve ...

"Focus peaking" use is not "normal use of Leica M" which is much better and more accurate focussing with the coupled rangefinder.

I've found that with 35mm or shorter lens, even with f/1.4 the focus peaking is useless in M10 and worse in M (type 240).

 

I can turn much more the focus ring and F.P. still blinking while with the RF, the discrepency is less tolerant.

[Ecar]

I did test the previous CV 35/1.4 in both versions. Unfortunately, pictures of that side-by-side test are long gone (FWIW, I still have the MC). My impression was that the difference between the SC and the MC was very tenuous, and only visible in specific circumstances, unless you were really pixel peeping. Modern coatings are very good these days, so that adding layers does not result in such a massive change in IQ. I'd say that if you are after a flat, low-contrast rendering, then there's no substitute for vintage glass.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Jon Glass said:

I haven't fully decided, but my thought process led me to the conclusion that the single coated version would give me the flexibility to achieve that classic, low contrast look, while supplementing it with filters will give me the option to increase contrast as necessary.  I also kinda like lens flares, so that factored in.

I don't think filters will add contrast.

[Jon Glass]

1 minute ago, pico said:

I don't think filters will add contrast.

Red ones will!  I suppose I did fail to mention that I shoot almost exclusively b&w film...important context and specific use case.

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, pico said:

I don't think filters will add contrast.

Well, a pol filter will.

[lct]

13 hours ago, stevelindqvist said:

Single Coated = flatter look, less contrast, strong flares, recommended for black-and-white photography
Multi Coated = stronger colors, more contrast, low flares, recommended for color photography

I'd agree if you replace single coated by uncoated and multi-coated by coated but single vs multi-coating differences are not that obvious IMHO. For example the first version of the M-Rokkor 40/2 and its sister lens Summicron-C are said to be SC but are not much different IQ wise to the second MC version for Minolta CLE. The latter has a bit less flare but it is not obvious and colors are not significantly more saturated. Now the CLE version of the M-Rokkor 90/4 has much less flare than the Elmar-C 90/4 but it is not sure that it comes from MC at all. Now my SC version of the CV 35/1.4 v1 flares significantly more than the MC version and i suspect SC to be the main culprit. I don't own the MC version though so i may be wrong on that. 

[darylgo]

I am not convinced that multicoatings were not more hype than benefit when introduced with great fanfare by Pentax in the 1960's as their Super Multicoated Takumars.  The rest of the photographic world soon followed, although Minolta touted their coating prior to Pentax SMCT as a important contributing factor in their lenses.  Who knows.  I can tell you from experience that a single coated filter and a multicoated will be difficult to differentiate in most photographs, but that's only two surfaces versus many in a lens.  Like you (op) I like low contrast, it's hard to duplicate with sliders in post.   

[pico]

11 minutes ago, darylgo said:

I can tell you from experience that a single coated filter and a multicoated will be difficult to differentiate

Multicoating on a filter is at most two surfaces. A multicoated lens means each element is coated. Big difference.

 

[stevelindqvist]

Many many thanks to all of you for your answers!

In fact I am thinking about buying some Voigtlaender lenses. I tested the new 35 mm/1:1,4 Nokton VM II and the 40 mm/1:1,4 Nokton VM each in the MC version. Unfortunately it was not possible for me to test SC variants in direct comparison.
So it is not so much about old against new manufacturing differences but about the difference of the two versions with regard to current production standards.

No matter who I ask or searched for, the general conclusion always seems to be "I kept the MC version". I wonder why a manufacturer still offers two variants for if the demand or target customer group has no interest or understanding for the differences.
I think I will contact Voigtlaender directly to get an official statement as well.

@a.noctilux

I have to admit that I'm not taking pictures with a Leica M camera at the moment, but I'm thinking about buying one. Especially working with a rangefinder is still a bit daunting for me. I'm currently using M lenses on a Canon EOS RP and a Nikon Z6 with focus peaking which works razor sharp on the EOS RP, but it's pretty useless on the Z6. Despite the internal image stabilizer I get hardly any sharp images no matter if I use the high resolution EVF or the rear screen. With the Canon (the resolution of the viewfinder and rear screen is worse), the focus peaking is unbelievably good and I'm (actually) about as fast as with the autofocus. I will probably open a new topic (purchase decision) on this subject...

[adan]

You gotta understand the physics to understand SC vs. MC.

A lens coating is a very thin layer of metal oxide, on the order of 1/4 of a wavelength of light*. It works to reduce reflections by way of destructive interference. The light reflecting off the coating is "out of phase" with the light reflecting off the glass underneath by 1/2-wavelength (the light reflecting off the glass has travelled 2x the thickness of the coating - in and out). Thus the two waves cancel out. No reflection of that wavelength.

The "problem" with a single coating is that visible light comes in many wavelengths (it is what we detect as "color"). The wavelengths of visible light range from about 400 (violet) to 675 (red) nanometers, thus any one coating will only remove reflections in a narrow band of the visible spectrum. This is why coatings give lenses a colored surface - a coating that works to kill the reflections of green light still reflects magenta/purple, a coating that kills the reflections of blue light reflects yellow, etc.

Note that the coatings themselves are actually colorless - it is only the thinness of the coating that produces the color effect, like an oil spill on a wet pavement, or colors in a soap bubble.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Multicoating layers of different thicknesses remove more reflections in sequential bands across the whole spectrum.

And in one of those weirdnesses of quantum physics - "destroying" the reflected light means more light passes through the lens surface.

So one coating on the lens means more light transmission (a lens becomes marginally "faster" - higher T/stop), as well as reflecting less light to cause flare and lower the contrast. And more coatings mean even more light transmission and even less flare/reflections. And multicoatings should reproduce color more accurately, since all color wavelengths are being transmitted more equally.

________________

*There is a new coating system coming in, as displayed in Nikon's Nano-Crystal Coating, Canon SWC and others. Different physics - same net effect. Basically, applying a microscopic "sandy" coating that smooths the transition between the refractive index of air and the refractive index of glass - the sharp difference in RIs being what causes reflections. It doesn't need multiple layers since its physics treats all colors equally to begin with, and the "sand" is by design of different sizes. It's a bit like the coating on non-reflective computer screens - vastly reduced in scale so that there is no visible "blurring."

[stevelindqvist]

This is an excellent and understandable explanation. Many thanks for that!
No wonder most people end up with a MC variant.

[Biotar]

The better and more modern the coating, the worse the glass can be. - that is the only truth.

The performance of simply or not coated glass lies in the special and expensive glass material - nowadays cheap glass is aspherically pressed, highly coated and glorified.

Cubic capacity can't be replaced by anything, except even more cubic capacity.

[lct]

Dunno about the CV 35/1.4 v2 but v1's bokeh looked significantly smother on my SC version compared to MC's and my SC flared more if memory serves. In fact SC tries to mimic the Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph with a bit more sharpness at f/1.4 but even more flare and focus shift and no glow (halos around highlights) at all. An MC variant with smooth OoF rendition could interest me but i don't hold my breath.

[dbdotdot]

I have the Voitlander 40mm, SC and have been shooting it with film. Compared with my 35mm ASPH 'cron, there is a substantial reduction in contrast and acutance. The difference is not subtle. This is only my experience shooting b&w film. I assume digital or color is a different kettle of fish. Also, I do not use a multi-coated filter on this SC lens.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 9, 2019 by dbdotdot

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M