On 16 Aug 2002 14:35:08 -0500, rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>quote:
>Canon should also be lauded for its attitude towards multicoating. They
>have publicly acknowledged that the only really useful reason for
>multi-layer coatings is to increase light transmission. They have,
>therefore, ignored any possible gains in terms of flare and ghost
>elimination (which, as we've shown, isn't really such a valid function of
>multicoatings in most cases)...
>
>Using a very precise laboratory analyzer.. we could detect virtually no
>measurable difference in background flare between the single-coated and
>the multicoated lenses. And in our portraits, which were shot against the
>same backlit screen used by our analyzer, we could detect no difference in
>flare within transparencies produced by single- and multicoated leness
>(see photographs, page 93)!...
>
>end-quote Multi-Coating, Asset or Gimmick, Bennett Sherman and Hiroshi
>Kimata, Modern Photography, June 1975...
>
>see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/coatings.html
>
>basically, if multicoating has so little impact in a multi-element lens,
>its benefits on a flat glass filter is likely to be even much less...
>
>grins bobm

When the first Nikkor multicoated versions of the
same single-coated lens designs appeared, I compared
a couple shooting with both the sun and dark areas in
the images. Guess what. They showed the same flare
and ghosting characteristics, except that the
multicoated lens' ghosts were multicolored instead
of neutral...;-) Brings to mind that old Barnum
saying, seeing ads that perported to "prove" the
superiority of multicoating for flare reduction...;-)