Were any of them really SC? They are all black nosed labeled simply Zuiko.
The coating clearly changed presumably for the better but none seem to fall
into the early SC catergory.
The flare is a by-product of the shift. The only time the hood is going to
have any impact is when the lens is shifted to the limit in the directiion
the light is coming from. A 21mm hood doesn't provide much help to a 35mm
I bought a cokin filter holder and lee "compendium style" hood to mount on
mine. I don't find any real advantage compared to a hand. The hood is much
slower to use. Perhaps a different mount with reference marks for how far to
extend the hood would make it better. That's another to-do for another day.
I don't feel the flare is any worse than some of the D.Zuiko lenses. The
tulip hood used on the D.Zuiko is far from ideal. I've found that even with
the D.Zuiko at its widest setting it's easy to prevent flare, the hood
doesn't prevent, by holding a hand in the right place.
I suppose if you take pictures with the sun in the image the best
multicoating would be a decided advantage. I actually carry my oldest 35
shift with the presumably worst performing coating. It's an old very dear
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Walters, Martin" <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Now since there's a thread about 35mm shifts, mine has a 106xxx serial,
IIRC. It is "MC" and seems to have the telltale green-magenta tinge to the
lens. So, I'm presuming that it was the early SC versions that have the
flare problems rather than the later MC versions. Is that correct?
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx