On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 08:12:23PM -0700, Marten Beels wrote:
. But this brings me to my question, how much
> better is a MC lens then a SC lens?
There is only one definite answer:
It depends!
For example: on then number of elements, the speed of the lens,
the covered angel of field, zoom range, type of design, .....
All those special details, what the designer will never tell the audience.
There are new lens designs around which couldn`t be
good enough witout MC. Mostly lenses with lot of
elements for one or the other reasons. This type
of lenses is not available without MC.
For the classic prime lenses (5-7 elements) MC isn`t that crucial.
So there is not more to worry when buying a old lens
beeing SC, than buying a lens wich is a dog because
of internal damage caused by a fall, fungi, ....
After accqusitation you need to test it, and then
decide weather You like the results.
> 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?
What I`ve heared:
When Olympus redesinged their OM lenses (~1980), there
was a "new generation" of optical desiger and new
computerized methods of lens design.
So they had another opinion about how a good lens
should be, what character a good lens should have.
This is like how the public-taste changes over time.
To signify the new type lenses to the
insecure customers the silver nose was waived.
(Altough I guess that this don`t mark the division correctly)
- Just what I´ve heard-
Frieder Faig
< 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 >
|