Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Interesting. Jeff's lens didn't make it into the MC survey and, for
> reasons unknown, mine didn't either. Jeff's is 126653 and mine is
> 108404. Mine looks and is lableled just like Jeff's. Silver nose with
> no MC designation. Since the lens survey only shows a single silver
> nose, and that labeled MC, it is now the odd man out. And, strangely
> enough, it has an earlier serial number at 101179. Since the serial
> number and MC designation are both on the name ring on the 50/3.5 this
> can't be the result of name ring changed during service. So this is
> either an error or else there was a production change early on.
>
There are other possibilities here. The survey could have another error
in it; there are a couple of obvious ones. The lens could have had
parts, silver ring or front ring, replaced in a repair. I have read ,
perhaps here, that those producing these lenses weren't much worried
about anal preoccupation with decades old production details and that
new parts, including the front rings, were simply dumped in the bin and
then taken out at random during production.
> If asked to judge visually whether this lens is MC or not I would have
> said no. It produces purple and yellow reflections which I associate
> with the known single coated, lettered, silver noses in the rest of my
> collection. And there is no green which I associate with my MC marked
> lenses. However, I also note that the predominant color is a strong
> blue. None of my other known single coated lenses has that strong blue
> reflection. I note that Jeff's photos of his lens also show a strong
> blue reflection. So, maybe it is MC, partially MC, early MC but it's
> definitely not lableled MC.
>
I came to the list after the frenzy of coating gazing had reached its
peak, produced its documentation and settled down to occasional threads
of modest duration. Taking my own little run at it, I was amazed at the
detail taken with colors and the lack of consideration of brightness.
Looking at samples of a couple of lenses in SC and MC versions, the most
obvious difference wasn't the color, but the brightness of the
reflections. In the particular case of the 24/2.8, the depth, size and
color of the reflections were really quite similar, but those of the SC
were much brighter than the MC.
This should obviously be the case, as that's the whole point of MC. It
should be easy to sort a bunch of different lenses into SC and MC simply
by looking at them under direct light, without any deep gazing.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|