Begin forwarded message:
Daniel T. wrote:
<< I've recently been given the option between two lenses - one an SC
and the
other a newer MC . . . Note: these are 135/3.5 lenses. >>
The 135mm f/3.5 was NEVER multicoated. Any references which say it
there are
MC examples are incorrect.
<< Is MC clearly better than SC, or is it just a personal preference?
>>
Often overlooked in reoccurring discussions of this question is the
fact that
some lenses were redesigned in the change from SC to MC. So it may
not be
just a question of light transmittence or the image color among
different
versions of multicoating. The following lenses had a major optical
changes
either going from SC to MC, or in an early version of SC to a later
version
of SC:
50mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.8
55mm f/1.2
85mm f/2
The following had a major optical change over its evolution as an MC
lens:
35-105mm f/3.5~4.5
One lingering question, which has not really been addressed here, is
what SC
lenses can accept replacement elements which are multicoated and have
differing parts numbers? Now that is a challenge to sink ones teeth
into,
since some SC lenses could be converted in part or whole to an MC.
Not that
it would be economical to do so, unless the parts came from a carcass
lens.
But I am intrigued that my 100mm f/2.8 SC is getting a MC rear
element - one
of the two most important elements for multicoating.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|