In my photo store selling days (extending to before AF), I recall a few lenses without rear coatings. Some Minolta kit lenses, if I recall correctly. Even low line Tokina wide angle and basic zoom lenses had at least one rear coating. Looks like the Pentax FA 28-70 has only one rear coating. Even my Zenitar has multi-coatings (and a good coating on that required rear filter element). Other than that, all my film era lenses have multi-coatings behind the diaphragm and certainly appear to have them on the rear element. It might just be a matter of the lenses I've run across (there are quite a lot of them). Beyond the sensor reflection issue, it is good practice for the sake of light transmission and better contrast even on otherwise middling consumer lenses.
---------- Post added 07-19-2017 at 06:36 PM ----------
Originally posted by ChristianRock So here's the resolution for the DA 35 2.4. Center is excellent and borders are very good from wide open.
Distortion is not field relevant, CA is tested to be very well controlled. Vignetting isn't an issue either:
And despite having gotten thousands of pictures from it and always being pleased with it, the only reason I could possibly like it is because it's cheap. It's true, I just learned that on this thread... or maybe it's because I have no idea what a good lens should actually look like. That is always a very strong possibility
I didn't mean to infer that it wasn't a good lens. In fact, I pointed out that it is better in the distortion department, likely better coatings and contrast. In short, it pretty clearly has a more modern look oriented toward digital preferences. Those aren't really my preferences, but that just would be me. Even the plastic mount is not an issue, as long as the build quality is good and solid (the DA 50 is fine with me). Certainly the DA 35 has had fewer build issues than, say, the SMC 21 which is all metal yet prone to loosening problems. I just keep my fingers crossed.