Philip F. writes:
<< However lenses . . . with worn mechanisms . . . scratched glass . . .
are not worth using since they just not up to the job necessary for
quality photography. >>
Not necessarily, although I agree about dented filter rims and sticky
diaphragms.
A number of MY lenses on the OM Lens Test site are users and show no
particular performance disorders. Therefore I continue to use them since
my photography is dysfunctional as it is. In particular:
18mm f/3.5 (OM-2000 sample)
Helical binds at near focusing distances due to being used in a custom
made in-water housing and run down the Grand Canyon, among other trips.
Also subjected to the rigors of National Geographic use. Also has
substantial wear on the filter ring.
28mm f/2 (OM-2000 sample)
Same National Geographic origin lens, hence well used, esp. to the
mounting flange.
35mm f/2.8 SC
Well used for over 20 years, incl. all sorts of non-damaging drops from
vest pockets and high vibration small aircraft use.
35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 (only sample)
Two microscopic pits in the front element
85mm f/2 (7 condition example)
Abundant cleaning marks from an "extra strength" fungus cleaning job.
Probable coating loss, too.
100mm f/2.8 SC
Small pit in center of rear element. Overhauled by Olympus America after
flying off a car roof at 35mph
If anyone who loaned a lens wants to fess up, I'm sure there might be
one or two more events to speak of.
Check the results on a 28mm f/3.5 to see what a dented filter ring can
result in. I'm always amazed to see what folks will pay for lenses that
can't accept a filter. I would stay away from them due to decentering
concerns.
Another MC vs. SC difference. Certain MC lenses are clearly changed
optical formulas vs. the SC version, although not necessarily with
superior performance. These include:
24mm f/2.8 (probably)
50mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/2
and maybe nearly all Zuikos that survived the SC to MC evolution.
Multicoating changes an elements optical properties. According to the
literature I have read, you can't just start applying it without
something of a redesign. Mind you, maybe not enough to show on the
optical cross sections.
All in all, these Zuikos are pretty firmly made puppies, with the
exception of my least favorite: the 35-70mm f/4 S Zuiko.
Gary (High Miles) Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|