At 08:12 PM 5/11/2002 -0700, Marten you wrote:
I know that we've been over and over how to tell a SC
lens from a MC lens. Now we've got lots of resources
and info to be able to easily distinguish between the
two. But this brings me to my question, how much
better is a MC lens then a SC lens? I realize that
this is a lot more subjective then just telling one
apart from the other. I understand that contrast will
be better on a MC lens, but does anyone have any
experience/comparisons between the two? Could someone
pick out a photo taken with a SC lens from others
taken with an MC lens?
My main concern about SC lenses is that they are older. If you get a mint
one, it may mean it has been sitting around somewhere growing fungus. If
it's used, it may be used up.
I've owned about half a dozen SC lenses and never noticed any fault that
"should" characterize them in contrast to MC versions: no flare, no
objectionably soft contrast. On the contrary, the SC glass has almost
always produced extremely pleasing results. The silver-nosed SC lenses are
also more aesthetically pleasing (to me) than their black counterparts.
If I could truly be certain that I could see a difference between an SC and
MC Zuiko of the same focal length, I would expect the SC version to be as
pleasing or perhaps more so than the MC version. The problem is that the
lenses have been around for a while. I've only had one or two that didn't
show some signs of wear and tear. Frankly, I don't know that Olympus
needed to "improve" their coating method except for PR reasons, but that is
mere opinion.
And I've never compared them scientifically. But look at the last image on
this page and see if it looks flare-prone and poor of contrast:
http://members.tripod.com/jdubikins/winter/winter.html
Joel W.
< 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 >
|