Well said John, thanks. Indeed now I see that MC is not always that
important.
----- Original Message -----
From: John A. Lind <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 300 4.5 Zuiko Single Coated Preffered?
> At 00:06 2/15/01, Titoy wrote:
> >Hi John:
> >
> >Why do you prefer the Single Coated version over the multicoated one as
> >mentioned below? In my limited knowledge is it not that most peole would
go
> >for a multicoated one?
>
> If I were selecting between an SC and MC side by side without being able
to
> shoot either first, I would pick the MC if visual inspection shows them in
> equal condition. However, now that I've used my SC for a while I would
> want to shoot film through an MC first to ensure it is as good or better
> before selling or trading the SC one.
>
> My remark was intended to say that even the SC versions of the 300/4.5
seem
> to be very strong performers. It's the only SC lens I have and it has
> proven to be so good I don't feel any need to eventually replace it with
an
> MC. Also, unlike the wide lenses, the 300/4.5 has only a few elements, it
> is much less likely to get into flare trouble with a lens this long, and
my
> guess is at least some of its glass has a high refractive index. All this
> makes the performance difference between SC and MC less noticeable (if
they
> are in the same condition).
>
> -- John
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|