Thanks for Moose and Chuck remind me about the S/N issue, it is a little
strange that I found both SC and MC 109xxx has very similar performance. I
don't think it is due to bad samples as both did very well even under 21MP
sensor wide open, much better than I had expected.
Test samples repost, RAW converted with sharpness set to zero (minimum):
50/1.4 SC, S/N 56xxxx (F1.4 and F2.8)
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3655_5014SC_F14.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3656_5014SC_F28.JPG
50/1.4 MC, S/N 109xxxx
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3657_5014MC_F14.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3658_5014MC_F28.JPG
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt"
> From your own post of Apr 2004
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:51:12 -0700
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: 50mm F1.4 lens
>
>
> 50/1.4s were made in several different variations over almost the whole
> time OM bodies were made. Only at the very end were they discontinued in
> favor of the 50/1.2. The very, very earliest used rare earth, slightly
> radioactive elements in the glass. There were at least 2 different
> coating variations in the SC versions and at least another 2 in the MC
> versions and there were some mechanical and lens element changes along
> the way too. Like other Zuikos, the silver nose is not the absolute
> indicator of SC. 50/1.4s marked G.ZUIKO are SC and all others are MC.
> Early multi-coated lenses have an 'MC' designation on the front ring.
> Later MC lenses, after it was clear that all lenses were multi-coated
> anyway, dropped the 'MC' marking. The last 50/1.4s, after the MC marking
> was dropped, and especially above ~serial #1,085,000, are really
> excellent lenses, especially remarkable for their even performance over
> the whole aperture range. There are many lengthier treatises, some by
> me, on this subject in the archives.
>
> A later 1.8 will generally be optically better than an early 1.4 and
> vice versa. Beyond that, unless you are using very careful techinque and
> making big enlargements, it's a toss-up, you would have to test the
> individual lenses in question. The 'MC' marked version of the 1.8 has a
> common problem with grease/oil migrating from the helicoid to the
> aperture blades and causing slow return from stopping down. 1.4s and
> later 1.8s very seldom suffer from this problem.
>
> Moose
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Moose wrote:
>> C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> It seems that both my 50/1.4 MC and SC have very similar performance,
>>> don't tell me the MC with 1,1xx,xxx number is better, I don't want to
>>> purchase another 50mm lens ;-)
>>>
>>
>> My recollection is that the breaking point for the last version of the
>> 50/1.4 was actually 1,083,000. You would have to go back deep in the
>> archives to confirm, but I think you already have one. :-)
>>
>> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
