There are 2 only slightly parallel things going on here.
1. Oly updated their lens formulations over time. Some changes involved
changes as radical as in the number of elements/groups. Some were
mechanical changes. The vast majority were coating changes, mostly from
single to multi-coating, but some changes to the coating details. The
standard 50mm lenses had the most changes, with at least 5 different
versions of the f1.8 and 4 of the f1.4. Very early f1.4 & 1.8s are
noticeably softer than late versions. The changes from one version to
the next are generally not earthshaking. In many cases, the only
discernable difference between SC and MC versions of the same lens is in
increased resistance to flare, although some listees believe SCs have
more desireable color balance. My guess is that some SC lenses are so
loved by their owners exactly because they are slightly softer wide open
and have slightly less contrast, thus making them more pleasing lenses
for pictures of people. Others will disagree. Gary Reese's lens tests
often cover both SC and MC versions of the same lens. My personal
conclusion from Gary's tests, other published info and list posts is
that it is probable that individual performance variations due to
manufacturing tolerances may be as big or bigger than the average
differences in measureable performance between SC and MC versions of
some lenses in non flare situations.
2. Early Zuiko lenses were styled with polished chrome accents on the
front of the aperture rings, filter rings and built-in lens hoods. A
later styling change to all black except for matte chrome (2 tone
shiny/matte on last 50mm versions) on the outside of the mounting ring
roughly coincided in time with the switch from SC to MC. Thus it is true
to say that most "silver-nose" lenses are SC and most black nose lenses
are MC. However, there a significant number of silver-nose MC lenses and
vice versa. For more info on Zuiko lens terminology see
<http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/lensterms.htm>.
There is generally no mechanical problem characteristic of any
particular early or late version of any Zuiko that I am aware of except
for some later versions of the standard 50mm lenses. It appears from my
experience and list postings that the fourth major version of the 50/1.8
(black nose with "MC" marking) is prone to getting oil in the aperture
mechanism which slows or even stops aperture reopening after exposure.
This is hardly ever true of earlier versions and apparently less common
with the last version ("made in Japan" text on front ring instead of
"MADE IN JAPAN" on side of mounting ring).
To get an idea of the overall improvement over time, check Gary's tests
of the 50/1.8 SC against his tests of the 35-70/3.6 and /3.5-4.5 lenses
at 50mm and the latest 50mm versions. They agree with my experience that
the 35-70/3.6 is a better performer (at the same stops) at 50mm than my
original, very early SC 50/1.8 and the latest 50mm versions are better
than both.
.
Moose
Gareth.J.Martin wrote:
Is there any difference in mechanical or optical quality from the
normal Zuiko lenses?
< 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 >
|