Unless Olympus Japan is kind enough to send us a definitive SC MC guide on
official
letterhead I don't think we are ever going to have complete certainty that
everyone
accepts.
The method I quoted, or the presence of green/aquamarine reflections is as good
as
we are going to get I think. Going by serial numbers would be the least
accurate
and valid method IMO because our sample size, compared to the the number of
lenses
produced, is always going to be so low as to make the data effectively useless.
Without meaning any offence to anyone, It might be that some of the data is
questionable or some of the lenses have undergone repairs that confuse the
issue.
I think Olympus USA at least ought to know what it is talking about and have a
way
to tell the difference. When a lens comes in for repair that requires an
element replacement, how else would they known whether to use an SC or MC
replacement. In a number of instances the optical formula changed in the
transition
from SC to MC so they would need to know.
Giles
John Hudson wrote:
> According to Lee Hawkins' list of lenses the above is not exactly correct.
> Hawkins' lists some MC lenses showing a leading letter and some SC lenses
> with no leading letter.
> The very first entry on the list
> 16 3.5 103400 Black SC No Zuiko
> is an example in question
< 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 >
|