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

Canon S.S.C
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:03 pm    Post subject: Canon S.S.C Reply with quote
What does it mean S.S.C in Canon lens names ? Is it better than others without this abbreviation ?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is an abbreviation of Super Spectral Coating, Canon's SMC!!!
Its name is great appeal for their marketing stuff I guess.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you!
So nothing special , is their SMC was effective or simple marketing trick only ?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course MC helps for flare registance or so as you know very well,
Canon finally started to use Multi-Coating of wide spectrum light
transmission like Zeiss' T*, but T* is still the best coating so far.

I guess not "marketing trick" only, but not expect a miracle!!!! Very Happy
(The above sentence is a bit confusing eh, I meant that SSC is not entirely
a marketing trick, but you cannot expect a miracle from it. Cool )

Though Nikon's nano crystal coating is catching up and its great
registance against flare/ghost is NEW tech coating to watch out!


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you !


PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I remember, in the middle of the 70's, the multicoated came to win the lenses market to the single coated lenses.

In this time, the propaganda of the MC wanted to us to convince that the lenses thus treated let pass (they transmitted) 98% of the light that received.

At the moment, were the begining to the MC in lenses (before, only in zooms and in superwide angles lenses). All the lenses brands tell that yours lenses have it, with the 98% of transmitted light in the lenses of 8 air-glass surfaces

Time goes by, the MC are far better than 70's. What happend with that 98%? If was true, all the new technology by 2%?

Who know. Rino


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I remember, in the middle of the 70's, the multicoated came to win the lenses market to the single coated lenses.

In this time, the propaganda of the MC wanted to us to convince that the lenses thus treated let pass (they transmitted) 98% of the light that received.

At the moment, were the begining to the MC in lenses (before, only in zooms and in superwide angles lenses). All the lenses brands tell that yours lenses have it, with the 98% of transmitted light in the lenses of 8 air-glass surfaces

Time goes by, the MC are far better than 70's. What happend with that 98%? If was true, all the new technology by 2%?

Who know. Rino


I would think, by this time the new lenses should be transmitting 150% or 200% of the light Smile


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

In this time, the propaganda of the MC wanted to us to convince that the lenses thus treated let pass (they transmitted) 98% of the light that received.

Time goes by, the MC are far better than 70's. What happend with that 98%? If was true, all the new technology by 2%?

Who know. Rino


NEVER FORGET that the transmission ration is PER optical element (a group of lens)

In a classic 80/200 with 12/9 elements in 9 groups, for a 2% loss you have

0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 .... x 0.98 = 0.833 = ~17% loss in transmission = 17% flare minimum

In a high end lens (zoom or wide aperture) with 16 elements in 13 groups

0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 .... x 0.98 = 0.769 = ~23% loss in transmission = 23% flare minimum

the painting, the metal construction, the blades ....adds flare to this minimum flare

With a modern coating (for info sigma or fuji in 1975 announces 0.02% loss in transmission)


In a classic 80/200 with 12/9 elements, for a 0.02% loss you have

0.998 x 0.998 x 0.998 .... x 0.998 = 0.982 = ~2% loss in transmission = 2% flare ONLY

In a high end lens (zoom or wide aperture) with 16/13 elements

0.998 x 0.998 x 0.998 .... x 0.998 = 0.974 = <3% loss in transmission = 3% flare

THAT'S A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT

This is the reason why high aperture or zooms were a major stream only in 1965/1970 when the first multicoating (3 layers) were available .. The 1st to have modern 3 layers coating was minolta
It is still the reason why high range zooms (28/80 - 35/200 - 28/200) with 15/16 elements were available in 1975/1980 when the first 7 layers multicoatings were widely available ..
It is again one of the reason why you can now have stabilizers (stabilizers ads again 3 or 4 elements)..

Hope this is clear now


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks you PBFACTS, very much for your clear and informative post.

I ask me, again, what happend with the planar design. In 1978/1980, the MC origined that this lenses loss only 2 % of the light.

Well, 29 years after, what added the technology to minimize this loss?

What is the actual trasmission of the light? 200%? (creating light process?)

I can understand yours clears words, and understand that they are relationated with the zooms lenses. It's OK.

I want to know the actual benefict of the news MC as the nikon nano crystals coated in the planar (or similar) design (6 to 12 air-glass surfaces).

The farce was in the " old " 98 % or is now with the new MC in designs with few elements?

Thanks again, PBFACTS.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

I want to know the actual benefict of the news MC as the nikon nano crystals coated in the planar (or similar) design (6 to 12 air-glass surfaces).

The farce was in the " old " 98 % or is now with the new MC in designs with few elements?


The less elements (air/surface) you have , the less you need a mc coating

Ie : Before 1985, the olympus zuiko lenses were NOT mc and everibody confirms they were among the best lenses in the world

A standard lens (50mm) is often a 7/5 lens
With a standard coating
0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 x 0.98 = 10% loss/flare .. Not too bad = not too much problems in standard light conditions / medium flare when direct to sun
With a mc coating
0.998 x 0.998 x 0.998 x 0.998 x 0.998 = 1% loss/flare .. It is near perfect and no more flare whatever the light condition

At the time present, the need for better coating is ONLY due to the digital sensor which does not like at all reflection (flare) and no more for the lens itself


PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I only can say thanks, very much, for your time and your amiability to post.

I have learned something today. I haven't a Dig cam (only a digi
compact), I use film.

Regards, Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I haven't a Dig cam (only a digi compact), I use film.

Regards, Rino.


Me too !
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1