alfredo pagliano wrote:
>Hi, and thanks for Your answer.
>
>According to the information found on the site of Paul D. Farrar,
>
>http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/zuiko.html
>
>the floating element close-distance correction mechanism where
>reportedly not used in the earliest version,
>
The key word here is "reportedly". In the lens multicoating surveys
conducted here, there were a few instances that could only be the result
of misreporting or lenses which had the front rings replaced during
repair. Not all reports are accurate.
The 28/2 and other f2 wide angles were relatively late designs in the
history of OM lenses and not produced in great quantities, probably not
much over 20,000 for the 28/2. There may well have been a mechanical
design change or subtle coating changes, but I don't believe the optical
design and moving elements changed.
>I think, the one with the silver front ring?
>
>
You are making the common mistake of equating the silver nose cosmetics
with the internal optical design. Unfortunately, the folks who decided
what the lenses looked like switched from the sliver nose to black at
roughly the same time that multi-coating was introduced. So while it is
true that most silver nosed lenses are SC and most black noses are MC,
it is simply not a reliable indicator. There are reliable, photo
documented reports of silver nosed MC lenses and the reverse. SOME of
the earliest of the "fast wides", the f2.0 21, 24, 28 and 35 mm lenses
and the 18/3.5 were produced with silver noses, but ALL were MC.
Similarly, some lens handbooks listed some of these lenses as SC before
they were actually produced and are in error. There ws even a lens
handbook that listed the 18/3.5 with a different number of elements than
were in the actual production lenses.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|