Reinhold
If it says F.Zuiko, it's SC and 6/4
If it says MC Zuiko, it's MC and 5/4
If it says Zuiko, it's MC and 5/4
Other way to tell is measure the length from the mount ring face to the filter
ring face. 46mm means SC and 6/4, 48mm means MC and 5/4
Julian
> from: ReinholdLetschert@xxxxxxxxxx
> date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:20:00
> to: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> subject: Re: [OM] 85/2 - sorry for the confusion
>
> >From: plp@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [OM] 85/2: 5/4 or 6/5
> >
> >On Paul Farrar's excellent webpage concerning lenses at
> >http://www.ametro.net/~farrar/zuiko.html, a note is made
> >regarding the 85/2 of two variations: 5 elements & 4
> >groups, and 6 elements & 5 groups. Did anyone here buy
> >their 85/2 new and so have the technical sheet that lists
> >whether their lens is 5/4 or 6/5? I want to know which
> >is more recent, 5/4 or 6/5, so if you'll list the serial
> >number like 123XXX, maybe I get figure this out.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >From: "Julian Davies" <julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Subject: Re: [OM] 85/2: 5/4 or 6/5
> >
> >The SC lenses are 6/4 (cemented 2&3 and 5&6. The MC lenses
> are 5/4,
> >cemented 5&6. The MC lenses are also longer and heavier.
> >
> >Julian
> >
> >From: plp@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [OM] 85/2: 5/4 or 6/5
> >
> >It seems as if we have a disagreement. Some believe that the
> >earlier version was 6/4 and others believe it was 6/5. I think
> >we need an expert. John or Clint, do you know the answer? Did
> >the first version have one or two cemented pairs of elements?
> >Does the current lens have a cemented pair of elements?
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >From: plp@xxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [OM] 85/2: 5/4 or 6/5
> >
> >I agree. That suggests that the original version was 6/4, then
> >they swapped a cemented pair of elements for a single element,
> >resulting in 5/4.
>
> I'm afraid I added to the confusion with my first posting on the list.
>
> Julian and Pete got it right with 6/4 versus 5/4. I had only looked
> at the drawings and tried to find out which was the earlier design
> and not realised that the earlier version had also 4 groups. So I
> just repeated the (not existing) 6/5. A look in the tables would
> have prevented that. Sorry about that.
>
> I thought I had narrowed down the time of the design change by a
> look in the different catalogues and it seemed to be somewhat
> along 1981. As I had bought mine early in 1981 I believed it
> must be one of the 6/4s and started looking for the technical
> sheet. I did actually find it but to my surprise it said already
> 5/4. This technical sheet was however printed in 0979 so the
> information in the Olympus (Europe) catalogues of both 1980
> and 1981 must have been outdated already when going to print.
> Seems I can't help with any serial number there.
>
> And thanks for the welcome Winsor.
>
> Reinhold
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|