Gary Reese writes:
> I sold one to Angel. The same rules apply: MC or Zuiko = multicoated. Both
> ID ring marking exist, as do chrome and black snouts, the latter in both
the
> SC and MC examples. Total production on multicoated examples appears to
> be 2000 and the SC versions 22,000 (to 32K?).
>
> So, as mentioned before on this list, the MC versions are one of the rarer
> lens variations produced in the OM System. I have a hunch that those
> marked just Zuiko are VERY rare. But excessive splitting doesn't
> necessarily means higher collector value to the variants. Check out
> Sartorius's Le*ca rarity grades vs. auction prices and you'll find that
not
> everyone buys into them.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
Yes, some years ago Gary solds one 200 f5 "ZUIKO MC" to me.
Now I have three lenses 200 f 5:
F.ZUIKO (The first, Chrome front ring and sc.)
F.ZUIKO (The second, Black front ring and sc.)
ZUIKO MC (The last, black front ring, rare and multicoated)
After do some hard tests on different moments and differents objets,
landscapes, etc I can say (IMHO) the better lens is the second one: The
F.ZUIKO modern Black nose single coated.
(I never test flare on lenses).
Concerning the lens 135 f 3.5, I have three lenses:
E.ZUIKO (The first, Chrome front ring, sc.)
E.ZUIKO (The second, Black front ring, sc.)
"ZUIKO" (The last , black front ring and ALSO SC )
After my tests and always IMHO the best one is the last one, the modern
"ZUIKO" and very near the second one, almost identical in performance, but
with different colour coating reflections.
I can say something else concerning tele lenses as 85 2 or 100 2.8 but for
cut this long story short, the pretty old lenses chrome ring (first edition)
never are best in performance than the modern ZUIKO MC or ZUIKO.
In the case of rare 200 f 5 ZUIKO MC, maybe to multi coat a lens is not
sufficient for improve the performance results and it needs a lens
recalculation.( -Not talk about LD or aspherical design-, only compare the
same old optical design single or multi coated).
Even so, I think the last editions of the two lenses (135 3.5 and 200 f 5)
are on landscapes, etc, better than the Gary´s tests says. Maybe the reason
is the adjust of the OM 1 for tests. Sadly, Gary sent to me the lens 200 f 5
before the new tests with OM 4 with MLU and close diaphragm.
Ángel Lobo.
Cuenca (SPAIN )
< 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 >
|