Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

What does the EBC in EBC Fujinon lenses stand for?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, that article is written in such bad English...

I don't think I understood half of it. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what i'm referring too:

Quote:


The introduction of multi-coating on camera lenses

Lenses coating dates back from 1935, when it was invented by Alexander Smakula, working for Carl Zeiss. While multi-layers coating (multi-coating) was invented in 1938 by Katharine Burr (at General Electric), it was not widely used on camera lenses untill the 70s.

Early multi-coating were easily scratched (or even wiped), so during a lot of years only single layer coatings were used.

During the late 60s, there was a cooperation between Asahi (the company which was latter renamed as Pentax) and Carl Zeiss Oberkochen. At this time, Zeiss was trying to partner with a Japanese manufacturer in order to produce a range of SLR cameras. (but finally partnered with Yashica to produce the Contax SLR)

The result of this cooperation brought the K mount (designed by Zeiss), the 15/3.5 rectilinear lenses (with some variations between the Asahi and Zeiss versions), and a new multicoating process. (it is unclear which company played the most important part within this)
This process allowed to apply resistant multicoating at a reasonable cost, and to increase the number of coating layers. The resulting multi-coating was said to only have a light loss of 0.2% per surface, ie a transmission factor of 0.998.


In 1972, Asahi used their strong multi-coating as a marketing argument, introducing the "Super Multi Coated" lenses (renamed to "SMC" slightly after), and claiming to use up to 9 coating layers.
Zeiss, which was then using a similar coating (same process but potentially different chemicals) renamed their T coating into T* in 1973, in order to use this as a selling point.
(T coating was originally single layer coating, but was improved through the years)

Those advanced multi coating were really a breakthrough, so competitors quickly reacted to this. Fuji stated that they would start using their EBC multicoating, featuring up to 11 layers, for camera lenses (it was already in use for their cine lenses). Nikon stated they where already using up to 4 coating layers), and Leitz and Canon stated that they were already working on similar multi-coatings.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fujinonuser wrote:
@Arkku
Quote:
Fujinonuser's interesting post above will also have to go into my read somewhere category of uncertain knowledge. =)

In historical research, there is no ultimate definite source. If you accumulate many independent data, you will increase the likelihood that some particular hypothesis is true.


True, but on the internet it's hard to tell whether data sources are independent or just repeating variations of the same story that someone read somewhere and posted on an online forum. This is why I'd prefer links to some magazine articles, manufacturer's own history tales, brochures, etc that have a higher chance of being independent, and preferably contemporary ones rather than modern (since modern articles tend to be copypasted from the Internet anyhow). Of course manufacturers lie, especially in brochures, but they still make for interesting reading and give some reasonably correct dates for products

Anyhow, I did not mean to criticize your post in any way, my own speculation earlier was similarly lacking in sources, and I did mean it when I said that your post was interestingit was, very much so. But if I were to re-tell the story, I could still do no better than say I read this somewhere.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From a very old newgroup post Wink



Quote:


Around 1967, Zeiss foundation decided to "scrap" Zeiss Ikon (which was not
producing enough profit), and entered negotiations with Asahi.

Goal:producing of camera bodies and lenses in Japan but to Zeiss design & QC.
This connection continued for 3-4 years but then Asahi determined that
the Japanese home market wouldn't buy Japanese made Zeiss lenses.
From this cooperation, came pooling of research into multicoating techs,
which resulted in both companies claiming multicoating at the same time.
The remnants of this cooperation may be even the K mount, which some claim
been at least codeveloped by Zeiss for use on the joint Asahi-Zeiss camera
(after all, Asahi pirated the popular M42 mount invented by Zeiss
Ikon/Zeiss Ikon VEB /east/).

The information comes from joint Asahi-Zeiss press releases between 1966
and 1972, and various sources on Zeiss history (e.g. The Zeiss Compendium
by Barringer & Small). Also, Asahi was supposed to give NASA a stipulation
when NASA acquired MC optics from them, as NASA had previously been
obtaining such gear from Zeiss. Zeiss wrote NASA a confirmation that Asahi
had the rights to use the process.

Please understand that I do not have access to "Western" photo-history
literature. Most of the historical literature about photography I have is
either dealing mainly with pre-WWII photography or dealing only about US
photography. So this is all information I heard from my friend.

Also, to the issue of T coating somebody mentioned: Lens coating was being
researched long before WWII, but all the attempts were not much working. In
fact, about turn of the century somebody saw that old lenses with sort of
haze/"coat" on the elements produce better pictures than brand new lenses.
The haze was just monomolecular so it acted as a anti-reflective layer.
Many approaches were tried, but only one proved to be stable and hard
enough was one by Zeiss, developed before WWII - vacuum coating of hard
substances on the glass. They called such lenses "V" for Vergted I think,
and some "T" for Treated. Other companies followed.

Actually, I don't give a damn if the SMC on my lenses was developed by
Zeiss, Pentax or both together, and who did first Multicoating layers. I
think that somewhat stable MC must have been researched quite a long time
before SMC was marketed, by several companies. After all, Fuji claimed to
be using EBC on some TV lenses even back in 1960s (as said by AOHC
article). And scientists must have been trying some of it even before.
It is maybe more like who developed the first commercialy usable, durable
multicoating. From my information, it was joint Asahi & Zeiss.

I said I don't give a damn, but it of course interests me (but not enough
to start some flame war - I just presented information known to me). Camera
history is an interest to me (specially history of lenses... a question for
you: was there any cooperation between designers of Planar and Biometar
these lenses are virtually same, except Planar has splitted first element
into two, and Biometar has splitted second element into two/ ?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems you have pretty much forgotten Warschauer Pakt area products Smile. They didn't name a lens Pancolar for nothing. Any good article about it?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 1.6 says DM in green, maybe that is the coating denominator?


No, the DM signifies that it supports automatic aperture control, according to the Fujica AX-5 manual. I don't know what that's short for, though.

But anyhow, it's not mutually exclusive with EBC; the one I have says EBC X-Fujinon 1:1.6 f=50mm DM


This may be an old thread but the DM stands for "Dual Mode".


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:
Arkku wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 1.6 says DM in green, maybe that is the coating denominator?


No, the DM signifies that it supports automatic aperture control, according to the Fujica AX-5 manual. I don't know what that's short for, though.

But anyhow, it's not mutually exclusive with EBC; the one I have says EBC X-Fujinon 1:1.6 f=50mm DM


This may be an old thread but the DM stands for "Dual Mode".


Well, the DM is comparable to the MD on Minolta lenses and shows that those lenses are usable on the fully automated cameras in all modes like the Fujica AX-5 or the XD7 for Minolta lenses. In terms of functionality those cameras are quite comparable as they both support shutter priority and aperture priority automatic exposure modes which needs those DM or MD lenses. BTW, I have both cameras in my collection. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
spiralcity wrote:
Arkku wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The 1.6 says DM in green, maybe that is the coating denominator?


No, the DM signifies that it supports automatic aperture control, according to the Fujica AX-5 manual. I don't know what that's short for, though.

But anyhow, it's not mutually exclusive with EBC; the one I have says EBC X-Fujinon 1:1.6 f=50mm DM


This may be an old thread but the DM stands for "Dual Mode".


Well, the DM is comparable to the MD on Minolta lenses and shows that those lenses are usable on the fully automated cameras in all modes like the Fujica AX-5 or the XD7 for Minolta lenses. In terms of functionality those cameras are quite comparable as they both support shutter priority and aperture priority automatic exposure modes which needs those DM or MD lenses. BTW, I have both cameras in my collection. Wink


I am currently putting some of my Fujinon DM glass on "the bay", along with many of my Fujinon film cameras. I find I will most likely never use them again, and they are taking up space. My AX3 and STX1 will be the first to hit auction block. I have nearly the entire Fujinon 35mm film camera line-up.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:43 am    Post subject: EBC and single-coate lenses Reply with quote

Sorry, I haven't followed this thread for quite some time. My information on the introduction of EBC coating comes from the Japanese-language company history of Fuji Film that was accessible on the internet. From reliable Zeiss sources it is clear that they "invented" their T coating before WW II. T is short for "transmission," not English "treated."

To make things more complicated, there seem to be US patents for multi-coating processes that were filed by US optical firms. It is possible that Fuji licensed one of those patents or developed their own EBC process from the information contained in those patents. The US patents date from the 1950s.

Lens coatings will also act as color filters. The rendition of green and red colors by EBC lenses is considered as unsurpassed, even when compared to Canon, Nikon, or Pentax lenses. But that is also a question of personal taste. When you compare the SMC Pentax macro lens to the EBC macro lens, you will notice that the Pentax tends to lighten up the shadows (which is desirable in a macro lens), whereas the EBC macro lens has a higher color contrast with lots of subtle shades for more plasticity (three-dimensional effect).

Coating must always be seen in relation to the glass to which it is applied. The thickness of the coating depends on the refractive index of the glass used, if it shall reduce reflection at the glass surface. In older lenses heavier sorts of glass were used in bigger lens elements, transmitting light at higher frequencies of the light spectrum (towards blue). A single golden coating may effectively prevent ghosting in those lenses, if it was made by a high-quality manufacturer, but there was an upper limit to the number of single-coated glass elements that could be combined, for example in zoom lenses. A second bluish coating was later applied to curb the yellowish highlights and increase overall contrast.

Standard non-EBC Fujinon lenses (50mm - 55mm) beginning at a maximum aperture of 1.8 are very sharp and quite useful in certain light conditions. To sum up: we have glass of a certain refractive index and light transmission that will allow lens elements of larger or smaller diameter and we have different processes of lens coating that will allow the application of up to 11 (or fewer) lens coatings that will allow the combination of a greater number of elements within one lens. These coatings may also act as color filters (in addition to the transmission by the sorts of glass used) that will give a certain feeling and taste to the pictures taken with a lens produced by a certain manufacturer.


Last edited by Fujinonuser on Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:20 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:29 pm    Post subject: Re: EBC and single-coate lenses Reply with quote

Fujinonuser wrote:
Sorry, I haven't followed this thread for quite some time. My information on the introduction of EBC coating comes from the Japanese-language company history of Fuji Film that was accessible on the internet. From reliable Zeiss sources it is clear that they "invented" their T coating before WW II. T is short for "transmission," not English "treated."

To make things more complicated, there seem to be US patents for multi-coating processes that were filed by US optical firms. It is possible that Fuji licensed one of those patents or developed their own EBC process from the information contained in those patents. The US patents date from the 1950s.

Lens coatings will also act as color filters. The rendition of green and red colors by EBC lenses is considered as unsurpassed, even when compared to Canon, Nikon, or Pentax lenses. But that is also a question of personal taste. When you compare the SMC Pentax macro lens to the EBC macro lens, you will notice that the Pentax tends to lighten up the shadows (which is desirable in a macro lens), whereas the EBC macro lens has a higher color contrast with lots of subtle shades for more plasticity.

Coating must always be seen in relation to the glass to which it is applied. The thickness of the coating depends on the refractive index of the glass used, if it shall reduce reflection at the glass surface. In older lenses heavier sorts of glass were used in bigger lens elements, transmitting light at higher frequencies of the light spectrum (towards blue). A single golden coating may effectively prevent ghosting in those lenses, if it was made by a high-quality manufacturer, but there was an upper limit to the number of single-coated glass elements that could be combined, for example in zoom lenses. A second bluish coating was later applied to curb the yellowish highlights and increase overall contrast.

Standard non-EBC Fujinon lenses (50mm - 55mm) beginning at a maximum aperture of 1.8 are very sharp and quite useful in certain light conditions. To sum up: we have glass of a certain refractive index and light transmission that will allow lens elements of larger or smaller diameter and we have different processes of lens coating that will allow the application of up to 11 (or fewer) lens coatings that will allow the combination of a greater number of elements within one lens. These coatings may also act as color filters (in addition to the transmission by the sorts of glass used) that will give a certain feeling and taste to the pictures taken with a lens produced by a certain manufacturer.


I find the Fujinon EBC macro lens to be an excellent lens and not plasicky at all. Your eye is the best judge.












PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I fully agree with you, Spiralcity. Your pictures taken with the EBC Macro lens 3.5 / 55mm are simply breath-taking. By "plasticity" I didn't mean to say that pictures taken with this lens look like "plastics," but rather like a three-dimensional sculpture. But your picture of the honey on a spoon also demonstrates the many shades of "yellow" an EBC lens will differentiate.

What is your opinion of Nikkor lenses? I once had a Micro Nikkor 2.8 / 55mm, but I was not convinced as far as colors are concerned. Nevertheless, it is a sharp lens with floating elements.

Which camera did you use in combination with the EBC Fujinon Macro lens?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fujinonuser wrote:
I fully agree with you, Spiralcity. Your pictures taken with the EBC Macro lens 3.5 / 55mm are simply breath-taking. By "plasticity" I didn't mean to say that pictures taken with this lens look like "plastics," but rather like a three-dimensional sculpture. But your picture of the honey on a spoon also demonstrates the many shades of "yellow" an EBC lens will differentiate.

What is your opinion of Nikkor lenses? I once had a Micro Nikkor 2.8 / 55mm, but I was not convinced as far as colors are concerned. Nevertheless, it is a sharp lens with floating elements.

Which camera did you use in combination with the EBC Fujinon Macro lens?


My Nikon is very sharp and it's a small, light lens. I use it for macro work only, I find it renders very well, so I can't complain. There are better lenses for sure, but at the price point it is worth the money.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arkku wrote:

I would guess that the best coatings today might be Zeiss T* or Fuji's Super EBC.

Both Canon and Nikon are using Nano/sub-wavelength coatings, they more or less eliminate all reflections, but due to their softness are only used on internal surfaces, and even then, only on the surfaces that need it, all other surfaces get their standard coatings, Canon has added a hard scratch resistant coating to the exposed surfaces on newer lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When it comes to coatings there are many theories and advertising tales. I cannot really say what coating may be the best one and which role coatings really play in digital times where most of those effects are rather handled by software instead. When I compared Fujinon EBC and non-EBC lenses I didn't find any difference up to now. I can't really remember if this was really visible different in analog film times as it is more than 30 years ago that I used both types of lenses on film.

However, I have a lot of practice and experience when it comes to coatings on corrective eye-glasses. From that experience I would rather rate Hoya best and Zeiss worst. Both in terms of durability and proneness to artifacts. That's really all I can say. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
When it comes to coatings there are many theories and advertising tales. I cannot really say what coating may be the best one and which role coatings really play in digital times where most of those effects are rather handled by software instead. When I compared Fujinon EBC and non-EBC lenses I didn't find any difference up to now. I can't really remember if this was really visible different in analog film times as it is more than 30 years ago that I used both types of lenses on film.

However, I have a lot of practice and experience when it comes to coatings on corrective eye-glasses. From that experience I would rather rate Hoya best and Zeiss worst. Both in terms of durability and proneness to artifacts. That's really all I can say. Wink


I use Fujinon non-EBC and FWIW, the EBC glass is sharper and the colors render very well. I never use much post work with my images, just some slight tweaks and image sizing. I like both coated and non coated, but I do see a difference, could just be me, but I doubt it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:

I use Fujinon non-EBC and FWIW, the EBC glass is sharper and the colors render very well. I never use much post work with my images, just some slight tweaks and image sizing. I like both coated and non coated, but I do see a difference, could just be me, but I doubt it.


Did you ever compare two identical lenses, where the one was EBC and the other was non-EBC? I doubt that sharpness has something to do with coatings which influence the wave lengths of the light only. Only under some circumstances when the coating affects the contrast of the picture to a certain extent it may eventually look sharper but in reality it isn't. If you manipulate the contrast afterwards during PP you may have exactly the same effect.

There is a theory on that: It greatly depends on the expectation. If you expect that the one lens will be the better one than the other then you most probably will judge it like that, even when it's not visible. That's what I call the "psychological factor". Wink Only a "blind test", i.e. when you don't know beforehand which picture was taken with what lens in particular I would accept that the judgement was unbiased and is therefore (your) reality. That's also based on the way we compose the final pictures in our brains from the information coming from our eyes. As a matter of fact your final picture from your brain may look totally different to mine. That's already proven by different studies. The role of the expectation should never be underestimated in this process. Audio is even more complicated than video in comparison as more regions of the brain are involved to compose the final sound. The ability to produce more detailed or more advanced pictures is even trainable as the information is always counter-checked with the information already available in the database of your brain. The bigger the database the more precise the final impression will be. That's a very interesting subject and I have read some scientific books about those phenomena. Very recommendable. Wink

BTW, the non-EBC lenses are coated as well but with a different (cheaper) coating formula. The glasses are exactly the same on both versions. Actually there is no non-coated Fujinon lens for SLRs in existence. Really non-coated lenses have been produced until WW II approximately but hardly afterwards. That's true for almost every producer.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
spiralcity wrote:

I use Fujinon non-EBC and FWIW, the EBC glass is sharper and the colors render very well. I never use much post work with my images, just some slight tweaks and image sizing. I like both coated and non coated, but I do see a difference, could just be me, but I doubt it.


Did you ever compare two identical lenses, where the one was EBC and the other was non-EBC? I doubt that sharpness has something to do with coatings which influence the wave lengths of the light only. Only under some circumstances when the coating affects the contrast of the picture to a certain extent it may eventually look sharper but in reality it isn't. If you manipulate the contrast afterwards during PP you may have exactly the same effect.

There is a theory on that: It greatly depends on the expectation. If you expect that the one lens will be the better one than the other then you most probably will judge it like that, even when it's not visible. That's what I call the "psychological factor". Wink Only a "blind test", i.e. when you don't know beforehand which picture was taken with what lens in particular I would accept that the judgement was unbiased and is therefore (your) reality. That's also based on the way we compose the final pictures in our brains from the information coming from our eyes. As a matter of fact your final picture from your brain may look totally different to mine. That's already proven by different studies. The role of the expectation should never be underestimated in this process. Audio is even more complicated than video in comparison as more regions of the brain are involved to compose the final sound. The ability to produce more detailed or more advanced pictures is even trainable as the information is always counter-checked with the information already available in the database of your brain. The bigger the database the more precise the final impression will be. That's a very interesting subject and I have read some scientific books about those phenomena. Very recommendable. Wink

BTW, the non-EBC lenses are coated as well but with a different (cheaper) coating formula. The glasses are exactly the same on both versions. Actually there is no non-coated Fujinon lens for SLRs in existence. Really non-coated lenses have been produced until WW II approximately but hardly afterwards. That's true for almost every producer.


Well, as the saying goes "The proofs in the puddin". As I stated, I own a crap load of Fujinon lenses and have been shooting with them for years. I see a difference in the lenses, and yes, I will state once again, the EBC renders sharper images. Compare them for yourself and make your own decision. I know what my results have shown, and they clearly show the EBC to render better colors and sharper images. I cant state much more than that. I am a believer in "the eye tells the story". I do not expect anything from a lens, but what image it will produce for me. I never paid the kind of money I see EBC selling for these days, so market value of the old lenses has no sway on what my eye perceives. All my EBC glass was purchased long before any collector craze, I think I paid under 50.00 each for all my EBC glass. I also think the images found on Flickr tell the same story. FWIW, if you find them to render the same quality images, that's absolutely an understandable observation and I hold no ill will towards your views, I just disagree, and as I stated, it could just be me, but I doubt it.

I want to touch base on this statement: "There is a theory on that: It greatly depends on the expectation." You do realize that statement cuts both ways, right?

BTW, when I stated non-coated, the assumption was you would clearly understand I was referring to no Electron Beam Coating.

Also, just to touch base on this for a second:

Quote:
I doubt that sharpness has something to do with coatings which influence the wave lengths of the light only. Only under some circumstances when the coating affects the contrast of the picture to a certain extent it may eventually look sharper but in reality it isn't. If you manipulate the contrast afterwards during PP you may have exactly the same effect.


I am not an engineer, nor do I make any such claim, but what you stated is actually not true. Sharpness is based on the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) measurement, which in turn depends on light wavelength, field position, spatial orientation, focal length and aperture value. So light plays a great deal in sharpness.

Sharpness is a subjective quality attribute of an image or a lens. Sharpness indicates the visually perceived quality of details of an image or details reproduced by a lens. It is associated with both resolution and contrast of reproduced details (within an image or by a lens).

The DxOMark score for Sharpness is based on the Perceptual Megapixel (P-Mpix) concept that weights the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of the lens with the human visual acuity.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:

I am not an engineer, nor do I make any such claim, but what you stated is actually not true. Sharpness is based on the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) measurement, which in turn depends on light wavelength, field position, spatial orientation, focal length and aperture value. So light plays a great deal in sharpness.

Sharpness is a subjective quality attribute of an image or a lens. Sharpness indicates the visually perceived quality of details of an image or details reproduced by a lens. It is associated with both resolution and contrast of reproduced details (within an image or by a lens).

The DxOMark score for Sharpness is based on the Perceptual Megapixel (P-Mpix) concept that weights the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of the lens with the human visual acuity.


Maybe I formulated it a bit too simple. I was referring to the wavelength only which influence the color only. And indeed, the color rendition influences the perceived sharpness. However, the color is also manipulated by the SW of the camera (e.g. WB) and/or during PP where it is possible to get similar effects.

I know that there are many factors that influence the sharpness of the final pictures, I've also read all that stuff. However, in digital times the color factor is easiest to manipulate afterwards as well. That was all I was trying to put into consideration.

Finally I don't want to convince you at all. Maybe there are better lenses with EBC coatings available from Fuji which deliver the better pictures. As I stated, I didn't have the chance to compare directly 100% identical lenses of both coating series. If I find a non-EBC version for little money where I have already the EBC version I will certainly do a direct comparison myself to proof whether my theory is right or wrong. I would be really curios now to check this myself in practice. Wink

The only question is whether that's worth the 65 Euro or not (that's presently the cheapest offer of e.g. the non-EBC 55/1.8 including shipping) as I certainly don't need this lens at all.Smile


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
spiralcity wrote:

I am not an engineer, nor do I make any such claim, but what you stated is actually not true. Sharpness is based on the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) measurement, which in turn depends on light wavelength, field position, spatial orientation, focal length and aperture value. So light plays a great deal in sharpness.

Sharpness is a subjective quality attribute of an image or a lens. Sharpness indicates the visually perceived quality of details of an image or details reproduced by a lens. It is associated with both resolution and contrast of reproduced details (within an image or by a lens).

The DxOMark score for Sharpness is based on the Perceptual Megapixel (P-Mpix) concept that weights the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of the lens with the human visual acuity.


Maybe I formulated it a bit too simple. I was referring to the wavelength only which influence the color only. And indeed, the color rendition influences the perceived sharpness. However, the color is also manipulated by the SW of the camera (e.g. WB) and/or during PP where it is possible to get similar effects.

I know that there are many factors that influence the sharpness of the final pictures, I've also read all that stuff. However, in digital times the color factor is easiest to manipulate afterwards as well. That was all I was trying to put into consideration.

Finally I don't want to convince you at all. Maybe there are better lenses with EBC coatings available from Fuji which deliver the better pictures. As I stated, I didn't have the chance to compare directly 100% identical lenses of both coating series. If I find a non-EBC version for little money where I have already the EBC version I will certainly do a direct comparison myself to proof whether my theory is right or wrong. I would be really curios now to check this myself in practice. Wink

The only question is whether that's worth the 65 Euro or not (that's presently the cheapest offer of e.g. the non-EBC 55/1.8 including shipping) as I certainly don't need this lens at all.Smile


Photoshop does not make all lenses equal, and that truly seems to be the assumption you are under. Again I disagree, but just because I disagree, I will again state that I hold no ill will towards your opinion. Whatever lens you prefer, I hope it treats you well. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

spiralcity wrote:

Photoshop does not make all lenses equal, and that truly seems to be the assumption you are under. Again I disagree, but just because I disagree, I will again state that I hold no ill will towards your opinion. Whatever lens you prefer, I hope it treats you well. Wink


Obviously we have a communication problem as I never stated that PS does anything like that.
However, don't worry and be happy. Smile
I give up.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
spiralcity wrote:

Photoshop does not make all lenses equal, and that truly seems to be the assumption you are under. Again I disagree, but just because I disagree, I will again state that I hold no ill will towards your opinion. Whatever lens you prefer, I hope it treats you well. Wink


Obviously we have a communication problem as I never stated that PS does anything like that.
However, don't worry and be happy. Smile
I give up.


Sorry but when you make such statements as:
Quote:
the color is also manipulated by the SW of the camera (e.g. WB) and/or during PP where it is possible to get similar effects. I know that there are many factors that influence the sharpness of the final pictures, I've also read all that stuff. However, in digital times the color factor is easiest to manipulate afterwards as well. That was all I was trying to put into consideration.


Quote:
I cannot really say what coating may be the best one and which role coatings really play in digital times where most of those effects are rather handled by software instead.


It makes one think that you believe all lenses are on an equal plain in the digital age, simply post process the image and "bingo" great lens.

What other assumption should one conclude from those statements?

Sorry, I just had to state my thoughts and explain my conclusion.

Whatever works for you, go for it.

Now I will give up with you. Laughing