> Reputedly Type 5 lenses are optically superior. They all seem to have been
> made in the same factory and precision and QC may well have been better.
> You cannot, however assume a Type 5 is better than any other; My best and
> worst samples of the 50mm f1.8 are both Type 5.Thanks for the comprehensive
> answer, Chris! All that rings true but a couple of surprising observations.
> I was not aware of that much copy variability for the MIJ versions and would
> have thought the serial numbers would be a good indicator for the most part
> unless the lens had been disassembled. I have not seen any mention on this
> list of large sample variability on the high sn 50/1.4 Zuikos. Certainly the
> Z 21 f2's had much sample variability in sharpness at wider apertures as
> documented by Mike Hatem. At least Nathan obtained his from Bill Barber,
> IIRC, so should have a nice MIJ copy. I may have to go look at my Z 50/1.8,
> Z 50/2 macro, Z 50/1.4 and Z. 50/3.5 macro just to give them some attention.
Nifty fifty fan, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|