Reference to 180 is assumed from it's appearance in the 1977 edition of pangerl
as a "coming soon". The 18/3.5 is also listed this way, but the lens data is
wrong (strange mixture between the prototype and actual).21/2 also listed as
"in preparation". Don't know if these ever came out with silvernose, but they
were always MC.
All the later design lenses were always MC, but were not produced with silver
nose.
Has anyone seen a silvernose 35 - 70/3.6? These were also always MC.
Julian
> from: Pschings@xxxxxxx
> date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:56:30
> to: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> subject: Re: [OM] is this a silvernose
>
> In a message dated 10/8/2002 5:56:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>
> Most lenses were originally single coated, and it's a pretty good bet that
> any silvernose will be SC, *EXCEPT* certain lenses which were always MC. The
> F2 wide angles, 200/4 180/2.8 were all produced as silvernose with letter
> prefixes and are *ALL* MC. (did I forget any?)
>
>
> Of the early lenses, I think just the F2 wides were MC. I'm pretty sure the
> first 200/4's were SC. The 180/2.8 is a later design and I doubt there were
> any silvernosed or SC versions. Other lenses that were always MC include all
> of the zooms except the 75-150/4, 28/2.8, 100/2, 50/2, 90/2, 180/2, 250/2,
> 350/2.8.... I'm sure I'm missing some.
>
> Paul Schings
>
> < 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 >
|