On the photo.net bb, J. Flesher stated that currently the above specified single coated filters because they lose less resolution than the multi-coated ones. The trade off being the increased chance of flare.

Opinions anyone?

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002

Answers

the thread was originated by Steven Palow.

and substitute tiffen for heliopan in the orig. post.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

The loss of resolution due to the thickness of multi-coating vs single or non-coating is theoretical and infinitessimal. The loss of *contrast* due to light reflection from uncoated or single-coated filters vs. multicoat is easily observable in practical photography.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 11, 2002.

jay, i was browsing the MF site while this one was down, and K. Fleischer (Zeiss) also (separate thread) contended from Zeiss' testing, that flare on film is caused more by stray/reflecting light in the camera itself (as the projection of the lens is circular and larger than the film format?) than any lens affect.

More opinions?

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

Dr Fleischer also contends from Zeiss' testing that going from uncoated to single coated lenses (and presumably filters too) has a much greater affect upon lessening surface reflections than from single to multi-coating in percentage terms.

And it seems from the same source that some multi-coated lenses are only so on the front and rear lens surfaces, the internal ones being single coated. Is this for marketing?

Jay, I know you use B+W MRC filters, as I do. I just thought their data was not what one would assume (counterintuitive), and wanted to let people know.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

I know I'll get burned at the stake for this, but. . . . I use a B+W KR1.5 MRC with my Elmar-M 50mm and slide film, and don't find it to be anymore flare resistant than any Tiffen I've ever used. Nor do I find it to be any more flare resistant than the Leica UVa I use for b&w. Find FLARE below: Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 11, 2002.

Glenn

You HAVE to remember to "make the photo publicly viewable". It is VERY irritating to have all your shots not come up! PLEASE.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Robin, Please accept my sincere apology. It seems as if I need to re-edit Photo.Net after posting there, which I didn't do last night. It was late, and I was tired. In any event, I'll e-mail you an example of my experience with a B+W MRC filter, and you can draw your own conclusions.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Thanks Glenn. Yes that is flare. I suppose to be really sure it was the filter you should have taken a shot without it too. I do think UV filters are the work of Beelzebub, however

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

No one ever stated that a MC filter will get rid of lens flare, which is what you have here. In my experience, 99% of the time flare is either caused in the internal elements of the lens or in the camera body (especially on cheap cameras like Kiev's)and not by the filter. I doubt highly that the use of a filter created the flare in the image you posted.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 12, 2002.

I just wanted to clarify: I never said, nor would I ever claim that a multi-coated filter will get RID of flare. What I do believe is that multi coated filters are no better at reducing flare than a non- coated filter. In other words, I should have saved my money and used a Tiffen 812.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

Oh Robin, one other thing, I might have taken a second shot without the filter if I had a slr. As you can see, this photo was taken with a Leitz M6, so I had no way of seeing what the lens was seeing.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 12, 2002.

That may indeed be true, that the 4 times as expensive MC B+W filters may not be "better" than an $8.00 Tiffen--The reason being that neither significantly affects image quality.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 12, 2002.

I suspect underexposure of the subjects and/or the absence of a lens hood also have something to do with the low contrast in the sample pic. Anyway, since there're no control shots made without a filter, one can't be sure the filter is the sole/main cause of the loss in contrast.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 16, 2002.