On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:31:52 GMT, Steffen Kluge
>According to Neuman - Ruether
>>You are quoting me, and as I pointed out in another post
>>in this thread (as I recall...;-), brilliance *is* slightly
>>improved with MC. This is a useful thing, though of a
>>considerably lower order of magnitude than the vast
>>difference in flare between single and multi-coated lenses
>>shown in sales brochure pictures, which is what I was
>>commenting about... As for the flare reduction in Nikkor
>>lenses, the only example I can think of (and the one I
>>was thinking of, when making the statement above) was the
>>one of the Nikkor MF 85mm f1.8, which in the single-coated
>>version was very sensitive to backlight.
>Yes, I did quote you, thinking that would be the safest way of
>soliciting your response ;-)
>
>I was worried you had changed your mind about what you say on
>your web site. You will know that SLE(MN) is among the most
>respected sources of subjective test results, and definitely is a
>certain stop for me before purchasing a lens.
>
>Being lazy and not wealthy enough to test any significant number
>of lens samples myself, I always put a lot of trust into SLE(MN)
>not the least because the testing method is well documented and
>the number of samples stated for each lens, so that everybody can
>make up their own minds about relevance and limitations of the
>resulting ranking.
Thanks for the comments. The URL for SLE(MN),
for those who have not yet run across it, is:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
>Your comments about the 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 pre-Ai actually
>made me avoid non-MC lenses in general, which turns out to be a
>bit overboard, after all. I wasn't sure when I read what you said
>in this thread, whether you've changed your mind about these
>lenses, or simply got carried away arguing for the pro-filter
>camp :)
Not the former, but perhaps a bit of the
latter...;-) I've been preoccupied with video
for a few years (though I try to keep SLE[MN]
current at least on Nikon's lens offerings, and
update ratings occasionally...), so some memories
of still-lens issues have faded a bit. The 35mm f2
MF, though of the same design as the original version,
does appear to be the other lens, besides the 85mm f1.8
MF, that did improve with newer manufacturing methods,
including, maybe, multicoating...;-)
>Ok, enough patronising, I conclude that it is best to evaluate
>flare resistance myself before purchasing a lens. In fact, the
>only little testing I'm regularly doing (shots of the night sky
>at various apertures) would point out flare quite brutally, at
>least at infinity focus. The stars did expose very bad flare on a
>Nikon field scope eyepiece that I'm using as a telescope
>eyepiece. Otherwise better than any other eyepiece I've ever
>used, those ghost images in the Nikon can be quite disturbing...
These may originate in the eyepiece...?
There is another issue with night shooting: coma.
Some lenses make a mess of point light sources
near the frame edges, turning them into "birds"
(head-on view...;-). In SLE(MN), assuming
characteristics that are not bad enough to stand
out, the primary standard for the evaluation number
is the sharpness (to the corners, or close enough...)
at the widest stop at which good performance can be
expected, when shooting in normal lighting. As
a result, some things that may "bug" some users may
not enter into the lens rating judgement at all...
In other words, an 85mm that produces a sharp-looking
image to the corners at all normal focus distances
shooting wide-open in normal lighting will get a
higher rating than one that is a bit soft in the
corners at the same stop, but has a tad less flare
in difficult lighting and maybe also has a tad less
linear distortion, since these will show in fewer
images than lack of sharpness will (and I'm a
sharpness nut...;-).