I have been using a 50/3.5 MC with S/N 178xxx for a long time, it perform
quite well, but for the coating there are still some purple reflections, may
be it is only a partial single coated one (or someone has changed the
element(s)). Another two 50/3.5 I have one with S/N 22x,xxx (without MC
mark, sold) and the other one with S/N 182,xxx has similar color of
reflections, they looked very green. I have only tried the S/N 22x,xxx, the
result was very good but I have not made direct comparison with the other
50/3.5.
I think all MC version should be okay but a later version without MC mark
could be the best. especially many 50/3.5 I have seen were having slightly
coating scratch/mark at the rear element, so a newer version is more
preferable (but the single coated version I had was very clean, otherwise I
will not put any comment on it).
Special care must be taken with the 28/2, I just got my third (the first two
were sold) 28/2 from ebay, the seller said it just has a small spot at the
front element that cannot be cleaned, it will not affect image quality.
Actually the whole front element are covered with scratches mark,
fortunately I have a spare front element disassembly from previous 28/2 (it
only has slight cleaning marks). All three 28/2 I bought were having marks
on the front elements, may be the coating is a bit soft for this lens.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Swale"
> Hello C.H.,
>
> You wrote:
> >
> > It is the single coated version, very easy subject to flare, I once
> > own up to four 50/3.5, I won't give the single coated a trial again.
> >
> > C.H.Ling
> So, with your discerning eye, (excluding the single-coated version), what
> differences did you find between the remaining three 3.5 macros?
>
> Is this a variable lens model - or did you find it fairly consistent in
quality?
>
> Brian
< 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 >
|