Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 50mm Lens Versions

Subject: Re: [OM] 50mm Lens Versions
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:04:34 -0800
C.H. writes:

<< One point I'm not quite sure, seems that starting from 5xx,xxx the
construction of 50/1.4 was not changed (except coating), the different
in performance might be came from the manufacturing, as the production
quantity of 50/1.4 was very high, tooling or fixture might wear and
changed a few times during the whole manufacturing history. >>

I'm clearly no expert on this lens. It has been confusing as hell for me
to sort out. I certainly second what you say about performance being
related to manufacturing variations (coupled with the effect of wear).
For me also, it took testing multiple examples to end up with a keeper.

Back in 1976, Popular Photography lab tested a serial number 295441. It
was basically middle of the road in Slit Image Percent Contrast charts,
but the bars for "lens tested to date" included a bottom of the barrel
Vivitar. Excluding the Vivitar, the Zuiko was a cellar dweller, except
for the Far Edge, which was respectable. The Zuiko also had the highest
flare of any f/1.4 tested to date. FWIW, their same had "perfect
centering," so the results probably can't be attributable to a bad
sample.

Scott writes:

<< Gary,I don't know if I quite understand how you tell which 50 1.4 I
have.On mine I'm looking at it says: ZUIKO MC AUTO-S 1:1.4 f = 50mm
864286. How would you tell from that which version this is?. >>

Looks like I have wrong info in my head regarding the serial number
sequence for MC1. I hope that Lee Hawkins gets the server for:
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mc-sc.survey
back online. [but look below for John L.'s post]

Rich writes:

<< Thanks for the info., Gary.  I guess that makes the OM-2s I got from
Rextex a better deal, since it came with a spotless 50mm f/1.8 with a
high serial number (which you refer to as an "MC2"). >>

Glad someone has gotten what they consider a deal. I truely tried the
help the guy out with grading inconsistencies, but it is obvious that he
beats to his own drum, regardless of increasingly irate buyers. I advise
anyone doing a return to record the serial number, as well as match the
serial number of what you get to what you saw in the auction pictures.

Chip S. writes:

<< I've taken apart two early SC 50/1.4 lenses. The earliest one
definitely had more expensive to manufacture mechanics than the later
one. Don't have the serial numbers ready  at hand though. >>

Glad to hear someone else forgets serial numbers! Interesting
observations, Chip.

John L. writes:

<< A search of the list archives, also last week, turned up Gary Reese's
postings some time ago citing the start of a second MC formulation with
>1,000,000 S/N. >>

John, I think your fine detective work stands as the best information we
have to date.

<< I am left wondering though how many of the sales on the crazy ones
ever complete the transaction.  Certainly the percentage that fall
through must be higher than average.  Some bidders will do completely
irrational things to guarantee winning, without consdering there might
be someone else equally irrational (was going to say "stupid" but
decided not to). >>

I had a Like New 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AIS that fetched $540 once. It was a
deadbeat bid resulting from a bidding war. But we agreed on $280, or
something and I mailed it off to the UK. He eventually returned it for
scoring under the focusing barrel - something no one on my end could
detect. I didn't get BidPay to do a reversal on the credit card charge
for 4 months, so it tied up lots of cash for a long time on that bad
deal. But, hey, it temporarily drove up the price on that lens since
there were all sorts of "follow the leader" sellers who thought they
could set a high reserve based on that comparable. The market always
seem to settle down after such events. Buyers just say "no."

Now we can see which deadbeat auctions get relisted. It will show up a
top the page of the "completed" auction.

<< What makes Gary Reese's data valuable is generally consistent use of
the same set of camera bodies in his testing . . . which is why I'm glad
he has posted which body was used for each test. >>

I blew it choosing an OM-1n early on. But we all thought at one time
mirror lockup was the end all solution to vibrations! You only think
I've used a limited number of bodies? Sorry, I have multiple OM-2S
bodies, and probably used multiple OM-1n bodies. There is always
someting in scientific experimentation that gets overlooked . . . ugh.
I used a OM-2000 for awhile because it produced fantastic wide open SQF
grades with my 90mm f/2 Zuiko. You just had to know that the tolerances
were there for that specific combo and perhaps others. If Olympus ever
changed their focus offset [the built-in mis-alignment that compensates
for average curvature of field in a manufacturer's lens line-up] over
the course of camera body evolution then we have another confounding
factor to deal with.

It's been a fun experiment. At least everyone knows the limitations
involved in lens testing. No one can be an expert and live a life! I'll
eventually test a few Zuikos which have only had OM-1n based tests, but
the work is essentially complete. I guess I need to test the 90mm f/2 at
f/2 against my OM-4T and OM-4 and two oldest OM-2S bodies, so we can
establish if there is any alignment or focus offset problems involved.
That is easy enough.

Humbly submitted,

Gary 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz