Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
a) Ken Rockwell is a goober. Keep this in mind at all times.

b) multicoating on filters will reduce flare due to the filter, not any other flare. All they can do is make the filter less-bad; there does not exist any filter that will give a less-flared image than with no filter. If you want to reduce flare, use a lens hood to make sure there is no direct sun landing on the lens.

If the contrast of the scene is so high that you can't record both shadow and highlight, then yes maybe the lens is poor or insufficiently clean. Or maybe you're just imagining that you can capture a greater dynamic range than is really possible - a white house in sunshine is about EV17 and a dark fence in shade could be EV5 or lower, which is a ridiculous dynamic range. Even with a perfect and flare-free optical system you're going to struggle to capture detail in both the fence and the house even on the best modern negative film. And you won't be able to print it without a massive dodge/burn.
Ken Rockwell is a peanut? Yeah in the south we call peanuts goobers sometimes.
I find that I agree with Ken at times, and sometimes I don't. One example: Nikon AF 35-70mm 3.3-4.5 lens. Ken hated it, Moose Peterson loved it, called it a sleeper lens, very sharp. I have one, and I've found it to be very sharp, and other photographers have commented on the photos, asking what lens I used. The earlier comment about the only authority you should be concerned with is you. I have Mamiya TLR cameras and lenses, and I am completely satisfied with them. I shoot Pentax 645 and don't find it to be vastly superior to the Mamiya lenses. So, I guess if YOU don't like them, don't use them, and don't worry about what other people say.