First, Tom should know from experience. While I am versed in the
science of MC, the specifics of an individual Zuiko is a constant
challenge to decipher. Your 'seller' is absolutely WRONG to use
'silvernose' as certification for MC from posted information and from
examination of personal lenses. In general 'blacknose' correlates with
the timeframe whence Oly upgraded from SC to MC. However, it is
important to note: 1. lens glass formulations and coating technology
were evolving technologies which were incorporated on a continuous
basis without specific model designations to reflect such; 2. some
lenses evolved into a MC version, but NO 'MC' was added to the lens
designation in since Oly marketing believed such would degrade the
value of products not yet upgraded; and, 3. some lenses, even the
'blacknose' versions, were NEVER converted to a MC version.
The same question arose recently when my 135/3.5 401XXX was acquired.
Suggest you read about both versions of the 135mm:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/
shared/zuiko/htmls/100mm.htm
From the text re the f2.8:
Optically, both have remained unchanged in their optical formulas since
the days of introduction except in the case of lense coating process
and/or minor cosmetic changes that may have been improved over the
years. The last of version for the Zuiko AUTO-T 135mm f/2.8 carries a
"MC" designation in the lens data which began shipping back in 1977/8
while the Zuiko AUTO-T 135mm f/3.5 has such update started probably
between 1983/1984.
This statement reflects what I stated above. Note that the last
sentence suggests a MC version was made, but NOT that "MC" was used as
a designation for the f3.5. As for your 350XXX............ Who
knows. It is a good Zuiko design, but not a particularly valuable one.
As many on the list and I wish for, a table of lens S/N with date and
cross correlation with MC does not seem to be available. Lack time at
the moment to check Dapoz's files for more info. As for my 401XXX,
who knows.........
Bill
On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 10:50 AM, Daniel Tan wrote:
The seller confirmed that it "IS" a MC, based on "all zuikos were
multicoated after the silvernoses". I'm not sure if he checked the lens
against the light, etc.
The serial no. is #350XXX, marked as E-Zuiko Auto-T 1:3.5 f=135mm
From this description I would have thought it was a SC lens, however
this guy does know what he's talking about. Usually :p
Regards
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos J.
Santisteban Salinas
Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2003 12:30 AM
To: Lista de correo Olympus
Subject: Re: [OM] SC vs MC zuikos
Hi, Daniel and all.
I've recently been given the option between two lenses - one an SC and
the other a newer MC.
Depends on the particular lens. Some designs have good flare
performance,
even with SC coating. On the other hand, some Zuikos were reformulated
when
changing to MC coating, achieving 'different' optical performance.
Note: these are 135/3.5 lenses.
In this case, go for the MC!!! Most of my SC Zuikos are quite flare
resistant, *except* the 135/3.5 -- otherwise, a very nice lens.
BTW, are you sure you're being offered an MC 135/3.5? The seem to be
quite
rare, if ever... I've got one marked 'Zuiko 135mm 1:3.5' like the later
multicoated lenses, but this lens (serial #411xxx) has indeed SC
coatings...
< 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 >
|