Pschings@xxxxxxx wrote:
>gaillot@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
>>What is the difference in construction of a so called "silver nose" and black
>>nose" Olympus OM SLR Lense?
>>
>>
>
>The first OM Zuikos all had chrome (silver) front surfaces on the aperture
>ring.
>
True.
>These were later blackened - I think some felt it was a potential source
>for flair. With the exception of the fast wides (21/2, 24/2, 28/2, 35/2) all
>silver nosed lenses are single coated.
>
Not true. From the eSIF: " The fact that the lens has a silver nose
certainly has nothing to do with the coating. Although the gradual
replacement of the silver nose by the black nose of all Zuiko lenses
happened more or less simultaneously with the replacement of single
coated lenses by multicoated lenses, the early multicoated lenses (the
fast wide angles) had the MC designation but still had the silver nose."
I have seen reports on the list, some with pics, of silver nosed samples
of the fast wide lenses, which were never made in SC, marked on the
front ring "MC".
>Black nosed lenses may be either single or multi coated.
>
True. There are examples of lenses with the x.ZUIKO form on the front
ring, a solid indication of single-coating, but with black noses.
The eSIF says "The X.Zuiko type designation also doesn't prove anything.
The fast wide angles and the 18mm/F3.5 were designed multicoated from
the very beginning and were initially designed (and maybe also produced
and marketed) with the X.Zuiko designation!"
I believe this is correct up to the very end. I've never seen credible
evidence of a lens marked x.ZUIKO MC. And all early MC lenses were so
marked. Even if such a thing exists, it is easy enough to see that it is
MC.
To repeat what the eSIF says, nose color means NOTHING about the lens
except which era of styling it was made in. Nose color was
styling/marketing.
If the original question is rephrased "What is the difference between
single and multi coated OM Zuikos?" it can be meaningfully answered. For
most lenses, it simply means that a lens which previously had only
single coatings on most or all surfaces has been updated to have
multiple layer coatings on most or all surfaces. This generally means
slightly better resistance to flare, slightly better contrast under some
circumstances and a small increase in light trasmission and thus
effective (vs. mechanical) f-stop. There are also some subtle changes
in color balance in the change according to some slide shooters, with
the SCs reported to be slightly warmer, "a special glow" according to
some list members.
Some lenses went through meaningful redesigns over their time of
production. The 50/1.8 went through at least 5 variations, the 50/1.4
through at least 3 and the 85/2 actually had a change in the number of
elements. Otherwise, optical designs seem to have remained essentially
the same for those lenses that went from SC to MC. It is also sometimes
claimed that there were changes in MC formulas over time. While this
seems likely, since there was rapid development in MC technology over
the period that OM lenses were made, all I've ever seen as to details is
highly speculative. Oly certainly never said anything about it.
Shooting normal subjects, away from the sun, I think it likely that any
discernable differences between say a SC 24/2.8 and an MC one are more
likely to be sample variance than a result of coating technology. On the
other hand, the last versions of the 50/1.8 and 1.4 lenses are better
than earlier ones, but that is not just coatings, but other differences
as well.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|