You will definite see a difference between uncoated Tessar's and similar compared to modern coated/multi-coated lenses from the 50's/60's onwards.

I was shooting with a hand-held Crown Graphic and a 1930's 135mm Tessar and edge & corner sharpness only starts to become acceptable at f16 and good at f22, (for the type of images I'm making). The lack of coating results in a noticeable drop in micro-contrast within an image when compared to a similar shot with a more modern lens.

The degree of loss of sharpness & micro contrast depends on the condition and design of the lens, a 1950's coated Tessar is better than the 30's version, the single coated Xenars from the 60's/70's are good too but they still suffer from poor edge/corner sharpness until stopped down to f16 and preferably f22. A similar aged 6 element coated Symmar/Sironar/Nikon etc gives far better edge/corner sharpness at wider apertures, as well as far better coverage for lens movements.

Multi-coated 6 element lenses will obviously be better still but the difference compared to a good single coated lens is only really noticeable in extreme lighting situations.

I've stopped shooting with my uncoated Tessar on my Crown Graphic simply because the drop in quality is too great with B&W films and the images will be used alongside others shot with my Wista & 6x17 canera amd modern lenses. I've replaced it with a 135mm Caltar (Symmar).

But try the uncoated lenses, my Tessar would be great for portraits, figure studies etc. I've found all my early Compur shutters to be remarkably accurate for their ges, both the dial-set & rimset versions, even at slow speeds.

Ian