Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Fujinon EBC vs. non-EBC coating
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Coatings improve transmission percentage of light. Any air to glass interface has a percentage of light that is reflected back away from the lens. This percentage is based on the difference between the refractive index of the air and the glass in question. The larger the difference the higher the reflection percentage. Coatings change this percentage by making this differential incremental in layers of material with index of refraction between the glass's index and the air's index. More layers improve this even more. I can't find my reference but IIRC the glass air interface could lose 4-5% at each junction. Prior to coatings lenses were limited to many fewer elements as the light drop off was so dramatic that even 5 element lenses would be very dark. Modern coatings allow lenses with 15 or more elements. A good coating system will improve contrast, colors and resistance to flair. I don't think intrinsic sharpness of a lens would benefit, but apparent sharpness might.


At least for me that was clear before. However, the non-EBC isn't non-coated at all and it seems to be rather efficient as well, though the EBC coating produces obviously slightly warmer coloring which might be a matter of taste only.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Based on information contained in "The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Screwmount Guide" which is based on actual Asahi Optical Company documents, I am referring to the Super- and Super-Multi-Coated M42 lenses, most which have identical optical formulas. True, Asahi introduced 1.8/85 and 2.5/135 with different optics, but before that, and after Super-, they also produced S-M-C 1.9/85 and 2.5/135, both with the same optics as the Super-.


According Pentaxforums there have been 4 different 85mm M42 lenses. 2 different ones F1.8 and 2 different ones F1.9. I was only referring to the 2 versions of F1.9 as you mentioned only the F1.9 before. Just to clarify that.

Rest is obviously a matter of taste and believe. I think we can leave it like this and continue to be friends. Wink

BTW, I really like most of my Takumars, even the older non-SMC ones and particularly the Super Takumar 50/1.4 which delivers a fantastic bokeh rendering for my taste:



PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
EBC (and S-M-C) compared to non-EBC (and Super-), using identical optics, EBC should perform better when bright highlight(s) is in-frame. I.e., better coated lens is more flare resistant.

Pentax advertised the new S-M-C coatings by comparing photos of swimsuited girl walking down ladder, sun behind her -- the S-M-C lens produced a photo with more clarity and less fogging due to flare, i.e., an image with more usable information.

Post processing has to make guesses to add information to an image, to clarify some detail through flare. Better to begin with clearer image.

Somebody might pay 2X for a lens that flares less, if that is a problem.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Somebody might pay 2X for a lens that flares less, if that is a problem.


I prefer to use always lens shades to prevent flare. Wink The best coating may reduce flare but the only way to prevent it totally is the right positioning of the lens vs. the source of light (normally the sun outside) and a lens shade. Under certain conditions a polarizing filter makes sense as well to enhance the contrast beforehand.

Just to clarify: I am totally in favor of the best coating BUT I certainly wouldn't pay much more for an Fujinon EBC lens compared to the same lens with non-EBC coatings. Wink
To give you some hints: The original price difference between the 50/1.6 lenses in both versions was 15 $ back in 1981. The non-EBC version of the 50/1.6 lens has been sold at Adorama for 34 $ in 1985.

However, I think we have exchanged our slightly different point of view in detail.

BTW, most of the advertising publications are very impressive. There is no doubt about that. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, of course, always use lens hood. Flare is happening all the time whether we see it or not. I guess I encounter many more situations where lens hood doesn't help much because of bright highlights, etc., where re-position is impossible. For example, this would not be possible with lesser coatings, as the highlights on the water would cause a lesser lens to flare like crazy:



Coatings lower the noise floor. Difference akin to cassette hiss compared to quiet CD. But the difference may be only that between cheap consumer mp3 player and one with a better op amp, only some people can hear it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
But the difference may be only that between cheap consumer mp3 player and one with a better op amp, only some people can hear it.


That is certainly 100% true. Same logic applies and the borderline between subjective impression and reality is different for each and every person.
Therefore only a "blind test" would deliver a more meaningful and unbiased result without any placebo effect.

BTW, in the audio world the difference in price would by far exceed the 15 $ of the Fujinon lenses. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am not sure I have seen my non EBC lenses ever get as sharp as this. Very little post processing.

135 3.5 Fujinon EBC



PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Yes, of course, always use lens hood. Flare is happening all the time whether we see it or not. I guess I encounter many more situations where lens hood doesn't help much because of bright highlights, etc., where re-position is impossible. For example, this would not be possible with lesser coatings, as the highlights on the water would cause a lesser lens to flare like crazy:


I think it's also important to remember that resistance to 'flare' is influenced by factors other than the various forms of coating - not least the optical design of the lens and its physical mounting. Specific to the EBC Fujinon family, when they appeared in the UK,reviews of the lenses and the cameras certainly did flag up their notable resistance to flare. The more perceptive writers commented that the internal blacking and baffling were particularly noteworthy in their extent and efficiency and this combination was suggested as a significant contributory factor.

I doubt that anyone back then ever bothered to do any methodical comparative testing . . . we were a lot less 'picky' in those days Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spiralcity wrote:
I am not sure I have seen my non EBC lenses ever get as sharp as this. Very little post processing.

135 3.5 Fujinon EBC


The only non-EBC Fuji lens in 135mm was the "Fujinar" 135/2.8 produced by Nitto for Fuji. Most probably this lens was worse compared to the original 135mm Fujinons in either 2.5 or 3.5 version both EBC coated. The price of the Fujinar which was also available as "Kominar" was only 50% of the Fujinons back in the 1980's. Wink
Same situation with the 28/2.8 lens produced by Nitto.
Only the 55mm and 50mm lenses have been available in non-EBC version in parallel as well. All other primes have been only available as EBC versions.

So actually the whole discussion is reduced to the 50 and 55 mm lenses. For all others there was no option available in the 1980's. Wink

Anyway, I agree that the 135/3.5 lens looks really capable. However, there was no alternative in F3.5. We therefore will never know how this picture would have been with non-EBC coating nor will we ever know which role solely the coating plays for this picture. Bad luck.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
I am not sure I have seen my non EBC lenses ever get as sharp as this. Very little post processing.

135 3.5 Fujinon EBC


The only non-EBC Fuji lens in 135mm was the "Fujinar" 135/2.8 produced by Nitto for Fuji. Most probably this lens was worse compared to the original 135mm Fujinons in either 2.5 or 3.5 version both EBC coated. The price of the Fujinar which was also available as "Kominar" was only 50% of the Fujinons back in the 1980's. Wink
Same situation with the 28/2.8 lens produced by Nitto.
Only the 55mm and 50mm lenses have been available in non-EBC version in parallel as well. All other primes have been only available as EBC versions.

So actually the whole discussion is reduced to the 50 and 55 mm lenses. For all others there was no option available in the 1980's. Wink

Anyway, I agree that the 135/3.5 lens looks really capable. However, there was no alternative in F3.5. We therefore will never know how this picture would have been with non-EBC coating nor will we ever know which role solely the coating plays for this picture. Bad luck.


I'm sorry, but your entire statement is moot. The EBC coating is what's at question, not the size of the lens. We have already been over this in a previous thread. The fact remains, my EBC coated lenses outperform the non EBC coated lenses, time and time again. It is not a fluke or magic of post process work. I have known this for years, as I am sure have many others.

I like all my Fujinon lenses, be them EBC or not, I think they all perform well, but I call the images as I see them, and EBC has made a difference.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quite a lot of equine doo doo. I must be very careful in future to use a lens with approved coatings as I would not like my customer to find out I use lenses that have no coatings,he may balk at the $450 I charge for a finished large print. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both taken with Fujinon lens..click for large.




PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spiralcity wrote:

I'm sorry, but your entire statement is moot. The EBC coating is what's at question, not the size of the lens. We have already been over this in a previous thread. The fact remains, my EBC coated lenses outperform the non EBC coated lenses, time and time again. It is not a fluke or magic of post process work. I have known this for years, as I am sure have many others.


I really don't understand what your problem is. Sorry.

Last try, especially for you:

There are some 100% identical lenses produced from Fujifilm around the 1980's in the focal length of 50 and 55 mm. Those lenses have been offered at the same time either as EBC or non-EBC coated versions at a price difference of apprx. 15 $. The question was if the EBC coating is improving the quality of those lenses (sharpness, etc.) to a noticeable extent or in other words if the very same lens just with a different coating method is delivering any better pictures. Nothing else I wanted to find out.
It turned out that the coating alone doesn't make really a noticeable difference what also the user "shapencolour" confirmed as he even tested exactly the same lenses in both versions, whereas I wanted to save some money and tested only two slightly different Fujinons in 55mm focus length.
So mainly the coloring is somehow effected by the different coatings and all other possible characteristics of both coating methods seems to be quite similar and neither one is noticeable better than the other. However, for 15 $ price difference no wonders can be expected. Therefore it's more a matter of taste than of quality which version to choose.

That has nothing to do with the quality of Fujinon EBC lenses as such. It is well noticed by many people and also by me that Fujinon lenses deliver good quality pictures and some of those lenses are also known to be even outstanding. However, as a logical consequence of the comparison of the normal lenses it can be said now that the EBC coating isn't the reason for that, at least not alone.

Therefore it doesn't help any further for the subject of the thread when you are presenting a picture of a Fujinon lens which was never available in two different versions at the same production period but as EBC lens only. The old Fujinon 135/3.5 lens without EBC coating is a different lens. I really believe you that the newer version is the better one but it's not the SAME but at maximum a similar lens. Therefore we never will know the reason for the better performance of the newer lens.

As a matter of fact I bought my first Fujica SLR camera 1980 and know also a little bit about those products. I was always happy with the quality of the lenses and didn't see any major problems at all. Honestly speaking I didn't care much about the different coatings at these times as the use of a different film had more impact on the coloring than any coating. Also the use of different filters in front of the lens was more common and did make more sense than nowadays.

To summarize: The EBC coating is delivering slightly warmer colors compared to the non-EBC one and has no further effect on image quality as also the non-EBC versions of the same lenses are able to deliver an excellent image quality.

BTW, in a test from the early 1980's in the German "ColorFoto" magazine the Fujinon 50/1.6 lens was rated as one of the best ones among 17 "normal" lenses (50 mm) with apertures betw. F1.6 and F1.8.

I hope that you now understand the issue as well.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kryss wrote:
Quite a lot of equine doo doo. I must be very careful in future to use a lens with approved coatings as I would not like my customer to find out I use lenses that have no coatings,he may balk at the $450 I charge for a finished large print. Rolling Eyes


Kryss, be careful! That seems to be a dangerous issue. Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Wed May 11, 2016 8:45 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bernhardas wrote:

That is a very bold statement to make. (pun intended)


bernhardas, on purpose I've tried to simplify the issue as this discussion also clearly showed that sometimes it's hard to argue about the difference between the same or something similar. Furtheremore we could extend the discussion deeply into all of the theoretical and scientific aspects of the whole issue to complicate the issue even further. Wink

Indeed I was focusing on the practical aspect and had in mind also the (practical) value vs. the theoretical differences of the whole issue and also the aspect of believe (subjective impression) vs. clearly visible differences for the mass of the people.

However, your decision. I would be happy to extend the discussion further. Apart from the physics, especially the aspects of subjective impressions and putting also into consideration the newest findings of the human brain researchers from the Max Planck Institute in Germany would certainly be interesting as well. However, it may most probably slightly leave the topic. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This thread is a great example of a lot of long-winded hyperbole.

A Bernhard points out, prolonged use over a decent period of time is how to judge things, all this talk leads to nowhere.

Seems to me some people just prefer to talk a lot instead of actually doing some photography they can then talk about.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This thread is a great example of a lot of long-winded hyperbole.

A Bernhard points out, prolonged use over a decent period of time is how to judge things, all this talk leads to nowhere.

Seems to me some people just prefer to talk a lot instead of actually doing some photography they can then talk about.


Dear Ian,

Your motivation to read and write in this forum will never be clear to me. Also your friendliness didn't improve very much. Maybe you should rather avoid to participate in my threads like I am at least trying to do so in yours, though I couldn't resist to make a comment on Minolta lenses recently as I certainly can contribute based on my long time experience with those lenses and that maybe of interest for other readers as well. Most probably not for you.

However, I think apprx. 35 years usage of Fujinon lenses in both variations and almost half a century of experience in photography not only indoors might give me at least certain ideas of what I am talking about.

In your logic maybe it's best to stop the discussions at all and stick to outside photography.

In my logic this is still the place to discuss and to exchange the different point of views and opinions in a friendly way.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist this time to reply directly. Take it as a condensed reply to all of your statements of this thread, not only the last one.

Kind regards,


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are you speaking about research showing parts of the brain stimulated during various activities, in real time?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Are you speaking about research showing parts of the brain stimulated during various activities, in real time?


Primarily about the methods how information is processed by the human brain and stuff like that. But I think that's really far beyond scope.
Your mentioned method is only part of the story. The most interesting topics are the conclusions and not the methods. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Are you speaking about research showing parts of the brain stimulated during various activities, in real time?


Primarily about the methods how information is processed by the human brain and stuff like that. But I think that's really far beyond scope.
Your mentioned method is only part of the story. The most interesting topics are the conclusions and not the methods. Wink


Sure. What are you reading, please?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Sure. What are you reading, please?


p.m. sent.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
... on purpose I've tried to simplify the issue as this discussion also clearly showed that sometimes it's hard to argue about the difference between the same or something similar. Furtheremore we could extend the discussion deeply into all of the theoretical and scientific aspects of the whole issue to complicate the issue even further. Wink

Indeed I was focusing on the practical aspect and had in mind also the (practical) value vs. the theoretical differences of the whole issue and also the aspect of believe (subjective impression) vs. clearly visible differences for the mass of the people.

However, your decision. I would be happy to extend the discussion further. Apart from the physics, especially the aspects of subjective impressions and putting also into consideration the newest findings of the human brain researchers from the Max Planck Institute in Germany would certainly be interesting as well. However, it may most probably slightly leave the topic. Wink


Manfred Spitzer, really? His bestseller "Digitale Demenz" (English "Does The Internet Make You Dumb?")


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:

Manfred Spitzer, really? His bestseller "Digitale Demenz" (English "Does The Internet Make You Dumb?")


??

Somehow strange to reply to a p.m. in the public forum.

However, this extremely well educated professor from a German university (teaching already at Harvard as well) wrote 24 books and produced many hours of video lectures on brain research findings. So what?
I already stated in the message to you that I don't know whether all his works are available in English at all and I mentioned some other authors as well.
You can look for any author of such lecture as long as they are involved in brain research. They all are telling the same story.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
spiralcity wrote:

I'm sorry, but your entire statement is moot. The EBC coating is what's at question, not the size of the lens. We have already been over this in a previous thread. The fact remains, my EBC coated lenses outperform the non EBC coated lenses, time and time again. It is not a fluke or magic of post process work. I have known this for years, as I am sure have many others.


I really don't understand what your problem is. Sorry.

Last try, especially for you:

There are some 100% identical lenses produced from Fujifilm around the 1980's in the focal length of 50 and 55 mm. Those lenses have been offered at the same time either as EBC or non-EBC coated versions at a price difference of apprx. 15 $. The question was if the EBC coating is improving the quality of those lenses (sharpness, etc.) to a noticeable extent or in other words if the very same lens just with a different coating method is delivering any better pictures. Nothing else I wanted to find out.
It turned out that the coating alone doesn't make really a noticeable difference what also the user "shapencolour" confirmed as he even tested exactly the same lenses in both versions, whereas I wanted to save some money and tested only two slightly different Fujinons in 55mm focus length.
So mainly the coloring is somehow effected by the different coatings and all other possible characteristics of both coating methods seems to be quite similar and neither one is noticeable better than the other. However, for 15 $ price difference no wonders can be expected. Therefore it's more a matter of taste than of quality which version to choose.

That has nothing to do with the quality of Fujinon EBC lenses as such. It is well noticed by many people and also by me that Fujinon lenses deliver good quality pictures and some of those lenses are also known to be even outstanding. However, as a logical consequence of the comparison of the normal lenses it can be said now that the EBC coating isn't the reason for that, at least not alone.

Therefore it doesn't help any further for the subject of the thread when you are presenting a picture of a Fujinon lens which was never available in two different versions at the same production period but as EBC lens only. The old Fujinon 135/3.5 lens without EBC coating is a different lens. I really believe you that the newer version is the better one but it's not the SAME but at maximum a similar lens. Therefore we never will know the reason for the better performance of the newer lens.

As a matter of fact I bought my first Fujica SLR camera 1980 and know also a little bit about those products. I was always happy with the quality of the lenses and didn't see any major problems at all. Honestly speaking I didn't care much about the different coatings at these times as the use of a different film had more impact on the coloring than any coating. Also the use of different filters in front of the lens was more common and did make more sense than nowadays.

To summarize: The EBC coating is delivering slightly warmer colors compared to the non-EBC one and has no further effect on image quality as also the non-EBC versions of the same lenses are able to deliver an excellent image quality.

BTW, in a test from the early 1980's in the German "ColorFoto" magazine the Fujinon 50/1.6 lens was rated as one of the best ones among 17 "normal" lenses (50 mm) with apertures betw. F1.6 and F1.8.

I hope that you now understand the issue as well.


No problem at all, I posted as according to the topic of your thread. Your thread title clearly stated EBC vs. non-EBC. if you wanted to only compare lens size and coating you should have made that clear. I respond to most Fujinon threads because I have a huge interest in the glass and cameras.

I truly think you haven't the slightest clue about lens coating.
Before lens coatings were invented, lens flare was a major determinant of image quality. The best lenses were generally the ones that allowed performance to remain high with the fewest elements, because there were fewer air-to-glass surfaces to create flare. This explains the lifespan of the exceptionally long-lived Tessar-type, despite its speed limitations. Lens coatings are of critical importance to modern lenses; virtually all zoom lenses and many highly-corrected multi-element lenses would be useless for general photography without them. Often, coating is what makes the most difference between an average lens and a very good one.

And your statement about "especially for me"? Please, I do not need you condescending reply, I have already proven my point and the only thing I have seen you prove is your long winded with NO proof of your claims. I have given you excellent , proven information on light and it's affect on sharpness, but for whatever reason, you like to ignore that fact. Light plays a critical role and coating is part of that equation. I guess Photoshop can make any lens great if you feel like tweaking every image you shoot for hours on end. How about grabbing good images with little post work? Lets try that, and see how great lenses really are.

Keep in mind my friend, you are not the only person on this form who has been shooting for many years and who has experience with Fujinon. as far as I'm concerned , you never have to reply to me again. I am actually finding your post quite trivial when all is said and done.

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1

Last edited by spiralcity on Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:48 pm; edited 4 times in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3