At 09:44 PM 8/12/1999 +0000, you wrote:
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>From: "claire" <clairetm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: .... MC and non-MC lenses ...
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:22:39 +0800
>
>dear all,
>what's the difference between a lens marked with and without the letters =
>"MC" ? is it true that non-MC lenses are poorer in optical quality ?
>
>TMLee
>
O Lordy. Giles, you must have figured "time for a torture test" when you
forwarded this one. <GG>
I would say that we've seen little to indicate that a single-coated (=
non-MC) lens is optically inferior to an MC lens, where the criterion is
resolution. One would expect two things from an MC lens: less flare and
greater contrast. If those are the criteria, then an MC lens ought to be
better. But I think to say an SC lens is "poorer in optical quality" would
be misleading. In my own experience with both SC's and MC's, I can't really
say that I can tell the difference in my photographs.
Have I missed something along the way?
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< 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 >
|