Angel
Determining whether a Zuiko is MC or not can be done in a couple of
ways. The two methods I used were looking at the colour of
reflections from the front element and determining the date of
manufacture.
The reflection method relies on looking for a green or turquoise/
green reflection. It is much harder to see on the 300mm than any
other zuiko for some reason. Someone compiled a list of Zuiko lenses
and the first date that Olympus mentioned in brochures that it was
multicoated. There are white letters on the black part surrounding
the rear aperture which designate the date of manufacture so if a
lens was manufacured after January 1982 it was MC.
More recently someone asked Olympus America how to determine whether
a lens was MC or not. They replied with a much simpler method than I
used. I think I would use this method in future as it is simpler -
"According to Olympus USA, there is a very simple way to tell if a
lens is MC. Look at the front ring on the lens and observe how the
word ZUIKO is inscribed. F. ZUIKO, G. ZUIKO, H. ZUIKO, etc., is an SC
lens. ZUIKO MC is an MC lens. The word ZUIKO by itself, with no
preceeding letter or no suceeding MC is also an MC lens."
Regards
Giles Stewart
PS. The list of lenses and dates and how to decipher the date codes
is at Lee Hawkins web site or in the FAQ - also at his site
http://www.astro.wellesley.edu/lhawkins/lee.html
> Giles:
> You say your 300 mms f4'5 is MC.
> Is MC engraved in the front ring?
> Got somebody this lens engraved MC?
> Thanks.
>
> Angel Lobo
> CUENCA (Spain).
>
> ----------
> > De: Giles <cnocbui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > A: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Asunto: Re: [OM] Price in relation to quality.
> > Fecha: lunes 25 de mayo de 1998 1:18
> >
> > Ingemar
> >
> > Patience! The 300mm f4.5 is not a rare lens. I personaly would not
> > consider any of the lenses described as being bargains. I paid US
> > $325 for one that was MC with mint glass and very near mint in all
> > other respects. Take time in your hunt until you find one you feel
> > is right then move quickly.
> >
> > Giles
> >
> > > Friends,
> > >
> > > I have been searching very intensively, for a while now, for a Zuiko
> > > 300/4.5.
> > > Yesterday I found a few very interesting lenses. BUT I am not sure of
> > > the quality as the prices seem to be to good to be true.
> > >
> > > The first two (I am only talking about the 300/4.5 in this message)
> > > would cost US$ 379 and are said to be "Ex". "Ex" was mentioned as
> quote:
> > > "80-890f the original condition. Shows average wear. May have small
> > > dings or pecks but no ugly places. Glass average."
> > >
> > > The third one was even cheaper as it would cost US$ 299, and the
> > > condition where said to be "Bgn", which was quote: "70-790f original
> > > condition. Shows more than average wear. May have dents, dings, and
> > > brassing, but very usable. Glass also may have more than average wear
> > > with some marks that should not affect picture quality."
> > >
> > > For lenses and their condition, I have been told that even small marks
> > > on the front glass will not make any effect on the result, it is more
> > > important that the rear glass are good and without marks. Right or
> > > wrong?
> > >
> > > I also found a fourth lens without closer description and the price for
> > > this was US$ 280.
> > >
> > > Now, I got a bit "suspicious" about all these lenses, well at least the
> > > two latter ones. To me these lenses may be in a quite questioned
> > > condition for the prices they have. I have not yet been in contact with
> > > the one who are selling these, I will though.
> > >
> > > I am not really afraid to buy second hand, in fact all my lenses are
> > > second hand, but I don't want to buy a lens because it is cheap and
> then
> > > end up with the double cost for fixing it. In such a case it might be
> > > better to buy a "more expensive" one. And I am not really afraid of
> > > having a lens with small marks on the black paint, the only thing that
> > > matters is that the pictures are not effected by any meaning. But of
> > > course it is always nice to have a good looking lens...
> > >
> > > My question is how prices generally are in relation to the quality of
> > > lenses. Or it is perhaps impossible to generalize? Are one of these
> > > lenses worth trying for or are they "too cheap"? I guess I am too
> > > cautious sometimes...?
> > >
> > > Any comments or suggestions?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards/
> > > Ingemar Uvhagen
> > > Gislaved, Sweden
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > < 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 >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > < 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 >
>
> < 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 >
>
>
>
< 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 >
|