Hi Chuck, John, Chris, Moose and all,
Again in catch up mode, resurrecting old threads...
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sorry, this is the post I should have put here. Also from John on
>October 2, 2000. A bit more info
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>According to my parts lists, there are 5 different 1.8s. The last three
>types (type 3,4 and 5) have plastic diaphragm rings & focus rings.
Now that you mention it... I've been doing some IR photography with the M8
and a R72 filter. I took a picture of (part of) my stash of OM gear:
<
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/5995743003/in/set-72157627326855826/lightbox/
>
Left to right, the three featured Zuikos are: 50/1.8 MC, 100/2.8 silvernose,
21/3.5. The last two show clearly the _bluish_ tone of IR-reflecting metal
on both aperture and focusing rings (save for the rubber band!) while the 50
uses _black_ ("IR-less", so to speak) plastic for both controls. The filter
ring is metallic, however.
>But as Chris said the easiest way to recognize it is the "made in japan"
>on the name ring in front. Often referred to here as the MIJ lens.
Or 'miJ', as already clarified. I agree, this is an easy way to tell the
last (or the two last?) version of the 1.8, but doesn't necessarily apply to
other lenses. Besides the unrelated cosmetic change from silvernose to
blacknose, I identify three kinds of lettering on 'regular' (non-zoom,
non-macro, non-shift) zuikos:
1) F.ZUIKO AUTO-S 1:1,8 f=50mm
2) ZUIKO MC AUTO-S 1:1,8 f=50mm
3) ZUIKO AUTO-S 50mm 1:1,8
The first scheme is _single coated_ and the F means the number of elements
(6 in this case) -- an usual practice back in the day, sort of a 'flare
risk' warning. In the case of the 50/1.8, the switch from silvernose to
blacknose was made in this phase. Not every lens had this kind of lettering,
e.g. the fast wides were MC from day 1.
The second scheme says MC, thus it's MC ;-) Equivalent to 'type 3' John H.
mentions.
The third scheme belongs to the era where _most_ lenses were already MC, so
no need to tell -- the 135/3,5 being the only exception I know. But notice
the lack of 'f=' in front of the focal length and, especially, the
_reversed_ order of this parameter and the aperture.
Zoom, macro, shift lenses never used scheme 1; if they say MC (type 2)
they're MC ;-) and if they don't, look for the focal-aperture order. Those
according to scheme 3 are _most likely_ MC, probably with improved coatings
from earlier MCs.
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>On 8/31/2011 4:56 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
>> The very last version is said to be the best.
>
>Agreed, if conventional sharpness, contrast and lack of distortion are the
>criteria. There will inevitably be those who
>will find that earlier versions 'draw' in a way they prefer.
Certainly. I while ago I managed to tray and test all known variants of the
50mm lenses. Of the f/1.4 version, I eventually decided to keep two: a late
1,1xx,xxx version (well know as the best from 'conventional criteria') but
also a _very early_ silvernose (133,xxx -- that's 33000 units made, am I
wrong?) which does have a smooth, richly coloured rendering much to my taste
-- if not on direct comparison with earlier units.
>Look for a serial number over 5,500,000. My 5,8xx,xxx is
>clearly a latest type.
Let's ask my lens database... the following 50/1.8's have been thru my
hands:
#152xxx (!!!) F.Zuiko silvernose
#274xxx F.Zuiko silvernose (*)
#344xxx F.Zuiko silvernose
#558xxx F.Zuiko silvernose
#1,106xxx F.Zuiko
#1,193xxx F.Zuiko
#1,833xxx MC (*)
#2,010xxx MC
#2,037xxx MC
#2,792xxx MC
#3,147xxx MC
#3,513xxx miJ
#3,656xxx miJ
#3,895xxx miJ
#5,204xxx miJ
#5,754xxx miJ (*)
#5,886xxx miJ (*)
*) Still in my possession
>As Ken mentions, but without useful differentiation, starting with the Type
3,
>"MC", age led to sticky aperture blades
My three earliest MC units suffered from that. I have no records of the
symptom on any of the other units, though.
Anyway, in my experience the problem whith those 1.8's is that the iris
_opens_ slowly, but closes snappily, thus shouldn't be an issue in practical
use.
>It appears that by Type 5, which has certainly appeared by serial no.
>5,800,000, but probably earlier, the aperture
>problem has disappeared and the optical formula is superior.
Thus, it seems I no longer have a 'type 4', my current earliest miJ is
#5754xxx. Any other way, from the user point of view, to tell type 4 from 5?
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|