My silver-nosed copy of the 24/2 is absolutely ancient, with a low-
looking
serial number to boot (and dates from the time before the date codes
were added
to the lenses).
I am still convinced that this early version used some of the fabled
"radioactive glass" like the early-version 55mm f/1.2, as mine was
very yellow
when I bought it, and UV/Sunlight treatment cleared it up nicely. I
don't
have a Geiger counter though :-)
Since Olympus changed a "lowly" lens like the 50/1.8 so many times in
terms
of construction and optical formulation, it' likely that they might have
done the same to an exotic like the 24/2, especially since this was
one of Maitani's favourite two OM lenses.
He would not have been able to sleep if it wasn't "perfect", I am
sure :-)
Dawid
On 30 Jun 2010, at 8:10 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I chanced to look carefully at the parts drawings of the OM 24/2
> recently and was surprised to see that there were significant
> changes to
> several lens elements and related parts labeled the "improved parts
> table" <http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/PDFs/24mm_f2.0.pdf>
> But I never recall hearing about there being two versions of the 24/2
> nor what serial number ranges might be involved.
>
> Gary Reese's tests of the 24/2 indicated "pronounced waveform"
> distortion in his first test sample and "moderate waverform" in what
> was
> presumably a second sample (although that's not explicitly stated as
> it
> is on other lenses). Is it possible the "improved parts" were to
> correct that distortion?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|