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: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:38 am    Post subject: Fujinon EBC vs. non-EBC coating Reply with quote
As there are some myths around concerning the wonder how EBC coatings are influencing the sharpness of the final picture I couldn't resist to make a comparison myself.
And of course, I am happy to share my findings with you. Wink

Unfortunately I don't have two exactly identical Fujunon lenses with both different coatings. Nevertheless it may also give some hints.

To make it as fair as possible I've taken both 55mm lenses, the F1.6 non-EBC and the F1.8 EBC version.
Pictures are shot with Sony NEX (16MP/APS-C) and WB set to manual 5500k. Both pictures at F5.6. Flash used. No lens shade.
NO manipulation in PP whatsoever!

1. Fujinon 55/1.6 non-EBC:



2. Fujinon 55/1.8 EBC:



3. Crops of the above in the same order:




So from my point of view it remains to be a myth only if used on digital camera. What you can see is that the EBC version produces slightly warmer colors.
However, as already stated many times, this can be easily modified by the WB setting or during PP.
I still wouldn't see any logical or theoretical background why the different coating should influence the final picture quality in DIGITAL photography.

If anybody has two 100% identical lenses with different coatings I would be glad to see something similar and as long as nobody proves that I am wrong with my assessment I will stick to my findings. Wink

Cheers,

Last edited by tb_a on Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Such tests reveal little other than the tester's ability to perform a test.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Such tests reveal little other than the tester's ability to perform a test.


Your statement doesn't add really much value to find the ultimate truth.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thomas - I question whether we can ever arrive at some 'ultimate truth' about this matter, although trying to find it may be entertaining and even educational !

To start with, I think one needs to have two identical lenses which differ only in the coatings to begin the journey towards a definitive answer . . .but even then I can see possible variables that could negate the entire exercise. We do not know for sure - and probably cannot discover - whether our hypothetical pair of Fujinon lenses are indeed truly identical. Glass types used in a particular lens may change over time, for instance, which could require some re-computation. Or the maker may look to simplify manufacture and revise the design to suit that purpose. In either case the firm may see no need to announce the changes. And then we may run into the perennial problem of sample variation . . the list of difficulties could go on ad infinitum

Still, that's not to say we shouldn't amuse ourselves by trying Wink

I have little knowledge of technical optics but am puzzled to understand how different coatings might cause the identical design to produce greater or lesser actual 'sharpness'. I understand how contrast can influence our perception of sharpness and I don't doubt for one moment that the member who set this ball rolling can indeed see a difference in the results from his different lenses, but I do think the reason must lie in something besides the coatings.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

Still, that's not to say we shouldn't amuse ourselves by trying Wink

I have little knowledge of technical optics but am puzzled to understand how different coatings might cause the identical design to produce greater or lesser actual 'sharpness'. I understand how contrast can influence our perception of sharpness and I don't doubt for one moment that the member who set this ball rolling can indeed see a difference in the results from his different lenses, but I do think the reason must lie in something besides the coatings.


Stephen, I am fully on your side. Wink

Thanks for your comment.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Coatings "increase" transmission by lowering the noise floor. Expect to see any differences with/without coating exhibited in contrast, and, of course, wherever contrast influences perception of "sharpness"...

By holding white balance constant, different color renderings of different coatings can be seen, sometimes. Example, between S-M-C & T* -- SMC is warmer...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Coatings "increase" transmission by lowering the noise floor. Expect to see any differences with/without coating exhibited in contrast, and, of course, wherever contrast influences perception of "sharpness"...
By holding white balance constant, different color renderings of different coatings can be seen, sometimes. Example, between S-M-C & T* -- SMC is warmer...


Well, at least for me that's nothing really new. However, the ultimate question was if an EBC coated lens is able to produce a better result than a normal coated Fujinon lens in such a way that you are not able to correct it afterwards to achieve a similar effect. Different colors and also some contrast enhancing algorithms can easily be applied by software as well. Especially the software enhanced contrast is able to contribute to the impression of the overall sharpness of the picture as well. Colors are just a matter of taste and not really a quality issue nowadays.

It is also clear (for me) that certain weather conditions may reduce the contrast dramatically. But I doubt that just the coating of the lens is able to overcome this problem comparable to the effect of a polarizing filter which is certainly able to cure such things beforehand which aren't repairable afterwards. Flare may also be an issue but that is rather avoided by a proper lens hood than by the coating.

In other words: Is it worth to look for the EBC version if a non-EBC version of exactly the same lens is offered for let's say the half price when shooting digital only?
Or is the quality enhancing effect of the EBC coating rather a myth compared to some other seller myths to increase the price for those glasses?

That are the simple questions where I am trying to find the right answers, although I am neither in need to purchase nor to sell any Fujinon lens for the time being. It's just a matter of personal interest and my logic tells me that there is barely any reason to pay the higher price if there is the choice between the different versions.

Finally I didn't really find any shortcomings on my Fujinon 55/1.6 normal coated lens till date and I doubt that a change to the EBC version would pay off.

That's actually the whole issue. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The whole issue is simple - does a lens have effective coatings or not?

I have a few Fujinons, both EBC and non-EBC.

Both types of coatings are very effective.

What else do you need to know?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The whole issue is simple - does a lens have effective coatings or not?
I have a few Fujinons, both EBC and non-EBC.
Both types of coatings are very effective.
What else do you need to know?


Actually nothing. For me the issue was rather clear before. Another myth on my list.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So why all the talk?

Just shoot the damn things.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My experience concerning coating differences is with Asahi Optical Company Super- and Super-Multi-Coated lenses. Quite a large difference for me. Am I to understand the difference between EBC & non-EBC to be smaller, less noticeable, perhaps unnoticeable?

EDIT: The test photos have different focal planes, as shown in crops -- compare pistil tips of white spotted "lily".


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
My experience concerning coating differences is with Asahi Optical Company Super- and Super-Multi-Coated lenses. Quite a large difference for me. Am I to understand the difference between EBC & non-EBC to be smaller, less noticeable, perhaps unnoticeable?


Well, for most Takumars the Super-Takumars are simply the older versions of the lenses compared to the newer SMC ones.
So I would see the bigger differences rather due to refinement of the lens as a whole which may include even the glasses.
E.g. my Super-Takumar 50/1.4 version 2 from 1965 is simply a fantastic lens and I never missed the SMC coating on it. The first SMC 50/1.4 was introduced 1971 and may also include different glasses, I don't know. At Pentaxforums some people prefer the ST and others the SMC version of this lens. I think it's more a matter of taste, at least in this specific case.

In contrast the Fujinons have been built in parallel with both coatings but the rest was unchanged. That is most probably the reason why the difference is hardly noticeable or doesn't really change the quality of the lens as already discussed in detail.

I noticed the slightly different focal pane as well. The used NEX is not my favorite camera and more difficult to focus compared to my Ricoh. However, I think for this test it's good enough. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So why all the talk?
Just shoot the damn things.


Thank you!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
My experience concerning coating differences is with Asahi Optical Company Super- and Super-Multi-Coated lenses. Quite a large difference for me. Am I to understand the difference between EBC & non-EBC to be smaller, less noticeable, perhaps unnoticeable?


Well, for most Takumars the Super-Takumars are simply the older versions of the lenses compared to the newer SMC ones.
So I would see the bigger differences rather due to refinement of the lens as a whole which may include even the glasses.
E.g. my Super-Takumar 50/1.4 version 2 from 1965 is simply a fantastic lens and I never missed the SMC coating on it. The first SMC 50/1.4 was introduced 1971 and may also include different glasses, I don't know. At Pentaxforums some people prefer the ST and others the SMC version of this lens. I think it's more a matter of taste, at least in this specific case.

In contrast the Fujinons have been built in parallel with both coatings but the rest was unchanged. That is most probably the reason why the difference is hardly noticeable or doesn't really change the quality of the lens as already discussed in detail.

I noticed the slightly different focal pane as well. The used NEX is not my favorite camera and more difficult to focus compared to my Ricoh. However, I think for this test it's good enough. Wink


I'm not sure I understand. The only optical difference between most Super- & Super-Multi-Coated Takumars is in coating -- the same optics, except now with coatings -- perfect candidates for comparisons as the only difference is the coatings. I can see big differences in contrast between Super- & S-M-C lenses. I compared these specific lenses: 4.5/20, 35/2, 50/1.4 (although these results are skewed by "browning" issue), 55/1.8, 1.9/85, 3.5/135, 2.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, & 4/300. To me the difference made by coatings is quite striking. I can see it in the viewfinder. I prefer the S-M-C rendering.

In the early days of lens adoption, the sensors didn't have as much dynamic range as today. Lenses with less contrast (less coatings) came to be preferable because they were easier to handle in high-contrast situations. Imho, this is the reason for some folks preferring the less-coated lens, in cases where only optical difference is coatings.


If not sharpness, what differences did you hope to find? Color rendering?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:


I'm not sure I understand. The only optical difference between most Super- & Super-Multi-Coated Takumars is in coating -- the same optics, except now with coatings -- perfect candidates for comparisons as the only difference is the coatings. I can see big differences in contrast between Super- & S-M-C lenses. I compared these specific lenses: 4.5/20, 35/2, 50/1.4 (although these results are skewed by "browning" issue), 55/1.8, 1.9/85, 3.5/135, 2.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, & 4/300. To me the difference made by coatings is quite striking. I can see it in the viewfinder. I prefer the S-M-C rendering.
In the early days of lens adoption, the sensors didn't have as much dynamic range as today. Lenses with less contrast (less coatings) came to be preferable because they were easier to handle in high-contrast situations. Imho, this is the reason for some folks preferring the less-coated lens, in cases where only optical difference is coatings.
If not sharpness, what differences did you hope to find? Color rendering?


I have almost every lens which you listed here and some more Takumar/Pentax lenses additionally but I don't know by heart in which variant, i.e. ST (Super Takumar) or SMCT (SMC Takumar). However, I don't have both variants of the same lens so I'm not able to compare them directly. Nevertheless I think I have more SMC/SMCT lenses. My 50/1.4 is definitely the older ST one.

If you look on the introduction date of each variant you will easily find out that the ST lenses are the older ones and the SMCT ones are the newer ones. I didn't find a documentation of the precise specification of those lenses in each variant. BUT it may easily be that like from other manufacturers also other measures have been taken to improve those lenses from one variant to the next one besides the changing of the coating method. E.g. to use different glass materials or even slightly change the optical formula a little bit. So the use of other glass materials might have a bigger influence on the contrast of the lens than the coating method.
At Pentaxforums it's reported that e.g. the 85/1.9 lens in the old ST variant was introduced 1964 and the newer SMCT in 1971 with an IMPROVED OPTICAL FORMULA in addition to the change of coating. Therefore most likely the improved optical formula has more impact on the change of lens performance then just the change of the coating method.

It's also quite interesting that manufacturers like e.g. Minolta or Leitz did never tell any fancy stories about coatings nor did they invent different naming conventions for their coating methods (not even mentioned on their lenses) and they also managed to deliver excellent and well coated lenses and I am sure they improved their methods as well as mostly the newer lenses deliver the higher quality (with some exceptions). So at the end of the day maybe the whole coating issue about different coating methods is somehow just a marketing gag used by some of the manufacturers. I don't really know but I thing that's more or less the story behind.

Only Fuji was somehow different as they produced and sold those lenses in parallel with different coatings. Without quality impact for digital photography from my point of view as only the color rendering seems to be affected as shown above.

Did you get my point now?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you tb_a for taking the time to do this simple test.
This is something that I've already question before I pull the trigger and buy a Fujinon 1.8/55 Non EBC.
I also think that if EBC coating can improve contrast and contrast can influence our perception of sharpness, but to my eyes I don't see any difference on your samples.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The whole issue is simple - does a lens have effective coatings or not?

I have a few Fujinons, both EBC and non-EBC.

Both types of coatings are very effective.

What else do you need to know?


Perhaps what the differences may (or may not) be . . . Curiosity is not to be dismissed out of hand. Would any of us say "All my lenses are sharp, what else do I need to know?"


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, when it comes to sharpness, I only discern two categories - sharp enough and not sharp enough.

There's far too much obsessing about the tools when the focus should be on their use rather than the most minor of technical details.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:

Perhaps what the differences may (or may not) be . . . Curiosity is not to be dismissed out of hand. Would any of us say "All my lenses are sharp, what else do I need to know?"


Stephen, that was and is always my main motivation: Curisosity.

Particularly to find out the differences between advertising and/or marketing promises or believe vs. reality. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:09 am    Post subject: Re: Fujinon EBC vs. non-EBC coating Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
As there are some myths around concerning the wonder how EBC coatings are influencing the sharpness of the final picture I couldn't resist to make a comparison myself.
And of course, I am happy to share my findings with you. Wink

So from my point of view it remains to be a myth only if used on digital camera. What you can see is that the EBC version produces slightly warmer colors.
However, as already stated many times, this can be easily modified by the WB setting or during PP.
I still wouldn't see any logical or theoretical background why the different coating should influence the final picture quality in DIGITAL photography.

If anybody has two 100% identical lenses with different coatings I would be glad to see something similar and as long as nobody proves that I am wrong with my assessment I will stick to my findings. Wink

Cheers,


If you want to see any difference,try to use EBC versus non-EBC in high and low contrast lighting,preferably with no flash and outdoors.The difference is there,though very minute.EBC shows slightly better microcontrast and a tad more saturated colours.I saw no sharpness advantage over one another.My conclusions are based on comparison between EBC and non-EBC 55/1.8,m42 Fujinons,that I have.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Fujinon EBC vs. non-EBC coating Reply with quote
shapencolour wrote:

If you want to see any difference,try to use EBC versus non-EBC in high and low contrast lighting,preferably with no flash and outdoors.The difference is there,though very minute.EBC shows slightly better microcontrast and a tad more saturated colours.I saw no sharpness advantage over one another.My conclusions are based on comparison between EBC and non-EBC 55/1.8,m42 Fujinons,that I have.


Thanks for your clarification. Actually you are confirming more or less what I stated before. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only clarification you will ever get in such issues is by getting out in the real world and actually using the lenses. No amount of internet pontificating will ever bring such clarity.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The only clarification you will ever get in such issues is by getting out in the real world and actually using the lenses. No amount of internet pontificating will ever bring such clarity.


Empiricism is fine, Ian, but it neither excludes nor denigrates discussion and the espousal of theory. Still, à chacun son goût I suppose . . .


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
I have almost every lens which you listed here and some more Takumar/Pentax lenses additionally but I don't know by heart in which variant, i.e. ST (Super Takumar) or SMCT (SMC Takumar). However, I don't have both variants of the same lens so I'm not able to compare them directly. Nevertheless I think I have more SMC/SMCT lenses. My 50/1.4 is definitely the older ST one.

If you look on the introduction date of each variant you will easily find out that the ST lenses are the older ones and the SMCT ones are the newer ones. I didn't find a documentation of the precise specification of those lenses in each variant. BUT it may easily be that like from other manufacturers also other measures have been taken to improve those lenses from one variant to the next one besides the changing of the coating method. E.g. to use different glass materials or even slightly change the optical formula a little bit. So the use of other glass materials might have a bigger influence on the contrast of the lens than the coating method.
At Pentaxforums it's reported that e.g. the 85/1.9 lens in the old ST variant was introduced 1964 and the newer SMCT in 1971 with an IMPROVED OPTICAL FORMULA in addition to the change of coating. Therefore most likely the improved optical formula has more impact on the change of lens performance then just the change of the coating method.

It's also quite interesting that manufacturers like e.g. Minolta or Leitz did never tell any fancy stories about coatings nor did they invent different naming conventions for their coating methods (not even mentioned on their lenses) and they also managed to deliver excellent and well coated lenses and I am sure they improved their methods as well as mostly the newer lenses deliver the higher quality (with some exceptions). So at the end of the day maybe the whole coating issue about different coating methods is somehow just a marketing gag used by some of the manufacturers. I don't really know but I thing that's more or less the story behind.

Only Fuji was somehow different as they produced and sold those lenses in parallel with different coatings. Without quality impact for digital photography from my point of view as only the color rendering seems to be affected as shown above.

Did you get my point now?


Yes, but you didn't get mine. Wink Laughing

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-.

I owned and personally compared Super- and S-M-C versions of these specific lenses: 4.5/20, 35/2, 50/1.4, 55/1.8, 1.9/85, 3.5/135, 2.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, & 4/300. That's 20 lenses, two for each focal length. One Super- and one S-M-C of each f#/focal length, each Super- and S-M-C pair has identical optical formula. The only optical difference between Super- and S-M-C lenses I tested are coatings.


Coating layers are "tuned" for specific wavelength band. I.e., there may be coating layers for red & blue, or for red, blue, & yellow, or, in case of S-M-C, coatings for 7 different wavelengths. Iirc, EBC is either 9 or 12 layers, while non-EBC is 7.

Not a marketing gag imho, there is too much scientific evidence.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3