Voigtlander SC or MC

[moonwrack]

I have a Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 purchased as the SC variant. I can find no markings on it or the box to confirm that it is Single-Coated. Is the only way to check to examine the colour of reflections in the lens?

[ferider]

It should say on the lens, like this:



Don't worry if you got the MC version though. In practice there is hardly any difference (I have both).

Roland.

[moonwrack]

Thank, Roland. It is MC and I was misled - inadvertently I expect - by the dealer. I intend to sell it (it is very good but too sharp for my current project, which was inspired by the late James Ravilious, who used uncoated lenses) so it is better to know exactly what type it is.

[sper]

You might want to just hang on to it. The only differences I've seen between the two are flare patterns. That's why I got the M.C. I think the single coating design is just marketing to some extent.

I had an old 250mm F6.7 Fuji single coated lens that I used on my old Deardorff 8x10. Basically 'single coated' meant that I really needed to use a hood. Whereas the 300mm Caltar (Rodenstock) that I was using at the time never flared or lost contrast. And I'm not talking about the good "low contrast" that we want from our classic lenses. I'm talking about a really nasty kind, haha. It's hard to describe.

Maybe run some Portra 400 through your MC and see how you like it.

[BzBrian]

I just ordered a MC version and it's coming in a couple of days because I couldn't find a SC version anywhere...

[ItsReallyDarren]

The SC lenses don't come up for sale second hand very often, that might make a statement over how much the owners like it. But you can try lowering contrast on the lens by putting one or two UV filters in front of it. It will lower contrast and increase flare, not exactly the same as getting a single coated lens but its a start.

[jsrockit]

There's not a huge difference between the two of them...

[kshapero]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

There's not a huge difference between the two of them...

I have both, can't really tell the difference, except the SC appears more classic like in B/W.

[rudolf]

Originally Posted by kshapero

I have both, can't really tell the difference, except the SC appears more classic like in B/W.

Well, what does "more classic in B/W" mean?
I also heard that opinion about all single-coated lens, but never saw the difference. Of course, I know what "classic look" means, but I assume that was achieved also by others factors: film, developer, paper, etc...
Can anyone give some example photograph here?
(best would be on the same subject, with the same camera/film, etc.)

[segedi]

The marketing for the SC version says it has lower contrast, so I'm guessing more tonality in B&W.

[umcelinho]

also, the tones from the SC are cooler than the MC's, might be the coating. I've had both, and the difference is indeed subtle though. I'm not sure why, but I like the SC shots better (but had it for much, much more time... so probably biased).

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by kshapero

I have both, can't really tell the difference, except the SC appears more classic like in B/W.

What does that even mean?

IMHO The SC vs. MC versions are just marketing for selling more lenses.

[kshapero]

More classic to me is just a softer look, but honestly in a blind test, I would not know one from the other. BTW I was having a hard time telling the physical build of the two. The SC on the lens is inscribed in blue which threw me off. It was hard to see.