Do lens nano coatings make a real image-quality difference?
Asked 2/2/2016
6 views
2 answers
0
Lens makers like Nikon and Canon market nano coatings (such as Nikon Nano Crystal Coat or Canon SWC) as improving image quality, especially by reducing flare and ghosting. Beyond marketing claims, what measurable benefit do these coatings provide compared with older single-coating or modern multicoating? Are there any evidence-based comparisons showing what changes in real images, and how large the effect is?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
10y ago
2 Answers
6
This isn't just one company creating their own buzz, and corresponding buzzword, for marketing purposes. This has been an important advance in optics in general over the last 15-20 years. The technology is still in its early phases, where there is a lot of proprietary knowledge being closely held by the companies that develop this.
I suspect it will be difficult to find a lot of A/B comparisons with/without nano-coated lenses. Firstly, because nano-coating (in Nikon parlance, or Subwavelength Structural Coating – SWC – in Canon's parlance) is not simply an add-on option like an underbody coatings in car sales, the availability to the general public is just not there.
However, below are some of the few actual quantifiable claims or visually qualifiably claims I could come across:
Canon's technical description of SWC technology shows a photo of 2 lenses side-by-side, one with SWC and one without. It's hardly the numerical data you're probably looking for, but taking them at their word, the visual evidence of reduced reflection from one to the other is compelling.
The abstract of this scientific paper on colloidal subwavelength nanostructures for antireflection optical coatings. by Zhao, Wang, and Mao states that,
The structure is used for antireflection coating, and the measured reflectivity of a glass substrate is reduced to 0.3%. Enhanced transmission through the substrate is also observed.
0.3% lost to reflectivity is just 0.004 stops lost to reflection.
The abstract of this paper on tuning the peak position of subwavelength silica nanosphere broadband antireflection coatingsby Tao, Hiralai, et al states,
Subwavelength nanostructures are considered as promising building blocks for antireflection and light trapping applications. [...] With a single layer of compact silica nanosphere thin film coated on both sides of a glass, we achieved maximum transmittance of 99% at 560 nm. [...] Such peak-tunable broadband antireflection coating has wide applications in diversified industries such as solar cells, windows, displays and lenses.
Their stated peak transmittance corresponds to a T-stop of 0.014.
Originally by user11924. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user11924
10y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—nano coatings are a real optical improvement, but the benefit is usually specific rather than dramatic in every photo.
Their main purpose is to reduce reflections at lens-element surfaces, which helps cut flare and ghosting and can improve contrast in difficult lighting. Based on the figures cited in the community answers, typical reflection losses are roughly:
- uncoated: 4–8%
- single-coated: 2–4%
- multicoated: 0.5–1%
- nano-coated: 0.05–0.1%
So compared with no coating, the improvement is huge; compared with modern multicoating, it is real but smaller. That means you’re most likely to notice it in challenging scenes—strong backlight, bright point light sources, or situations prone to veiling flare—not as a universal sharpness boost.
A/B comparisons are hard to find because nano coating is usually built into specific lens designs rather than offered as an otherwise identical coated/uncoated version. Also, manufacturers sometimes compare against uncoated lenses, which can make the gain sound larger than it is relative to already well-multicoated modern lenses.
Bottom line: nano coatings do make a measurable difference, mainly by reducing reflections, flare, and ghosting and preserving contrast, but they are one part of lens performance, not magic on their own.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI10y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why does Canon use both SWC and ASC lens coatings, and how do they differ?
What does “professional-grade” mean for Nikon lenses?
What do coating, multi-coating, and nano-coating mean on lenses and filters?
How do coatings on older M42 lenses compare with modern lenses, and do they affect image quality?
Is B+W MRC worth it on a 77mm UV/protection filter?