coated vs. uncoated lenses

Uncoated? Are you sure you aren't confusing uncoated with single-coated?

I don't know. The information on the lenses is a bit spotty. Here's what I came up with.

Zodiak-8 (30mm) uncoated Arsat 30 MC multi-coated

Jupiter-36 (250mm) uncoated Arsat 250 MC, multicoated

Vega-12 (90mm) possibly single-coated - I can't really tell

Volna-3 MC (80mm) multi-coated

I'd love to be wrong and buy the cheaper versions.

I'm pretty sure that the difference between multi-coated and single-coated lenses isn't worth paying double for.

Buy the cheaper version. Single-coated and uncoated lens are just as good as multi-coated lenses, and only in very few situations there might be a noticeable improvement with modern multi-coated lenses. Check out the Classic Camera forum for many excellent photos taken with vintage, un- or single-coated glass.

well if it HAS a coating I agree Bueh. The multicoating might reduce the severity of the flare, but if it's going to flare, it's still going to flare, right?

It really depends on where you're getting the lenses from. The Arsat lenses you list are - or so I'm told - the exact same lenses as their un/single-coated counterparts physically - same glass, same metal, off the same assembly lines - which are then gone over by Arsat after the fact. They do - or claim to do - quite a bit more than just multicoating the elements. You pay a hefty premium for all the value-added service they provide, and the peace of mind of knowing you're not buying a "dog". So, if that sort of thing is really important to you... go for the Arsats. Otherwise, buy the non-rebranded lenses from someplace with a good return policy.

That said, the difference between otherwise good - and identical - uncoated, or single-coated, lenses isn't worth worrying about.

Have you flocked the film chamber of your camera? I did that to my Kiev-60, and it made a world of difference. Like you, I shoot a lot of photos at night and under other unusual lighting conditions, and haven't ever run into flare with the 80mm Volna. I sometimes run into problems with the 45mm Mir, but that's kind of to be expected.

well the non-arsat lenses are used, but are from someone who is selling his own personal gear and was quite happy with it.

I have not flocked the camera yet, but I'm planning to send it to Arax this summer to be flocked, adjusted, and the shutter replaced with a titanium one. I just wanted to shoot some film before I send it out just to make sure I've caught all the quirks that need to be adjusted. So far, the only problems I've noticed are:

1) static fog (probably due to sloppy handling while loading the film on reels

2) flare/fog at night on some shots when doing long exposures (1-30 minutes) (might be due to internal reflection...hard to tell what the source is)

3) sometimes (especially when using a cable release) film doesn't advance when I cock the camera. Don't know if this is a back or camera problem

4) back needs to be twisted to the right to release from the camera. Don't know if this is a back or camera problem either.

However, these are minor annoyances and for the most part it works great. According to the serial number I believe it's a 1980 manufacture. I suppose I could send the lenses too if I find problems with them.

It's not just flare that coatings help with, but the overall contrast as well. At night you're almost always shooting directly into lights, a situation guarenteed to maximise flare problems. So unless you actually want washed out pictures I would suggest you buy lenses with the best coating you can.

that's exactly why I'm asking if there are 2 versions of these lenses with different coatings.

Whichever the brand, whatever the situation, the best possible lens shade is advisable and more so with non- and single-coated objectives.

Photography at night may well present situations with street lighting and/or vehicle lights outside the image frame. These will in many cases degrade the exposure. Eliminate them with a shade.

Jenny