I always thought they look tacky, though as collector's pieces today I
could imagine it from a different point of view. My first tele was a 200
and had the silver around the rim of the retractable lens hood. Don't have
that lens anymore as a speed freak ripped me off back in the summer of 1984.
Tris
At 12:14 PM 7/20/01 -0500, you wrote:
Silvernose are the oldest 'original' lenses. I believe all the M lenses
were silvernose and I would guess (can someone confirm?) that most of the
silvernose OM lenses were also available as M lenses.
They are the oldest formulations, in most case SC. The exception is the
fast/wides (21/2,24/2,28/2, don't know about the 35/2). They were always
MC. Interestingly, some of the fast wides were MC at the beginning, but not
marked MC. As Olympus started releasing MC lenses, they ADDED the MC on the
filter ring of some of the lenses that were always MC. Then, when all the
lenses were MC, they took MC back off (hope I have that right).
They are not, in my experience, any more valuable, but they sure are cool
looking. I have a number of silvernoses, including a 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.8,
75-150/4 and 300/4.5.
Tom
> Would someone be so kind as to bring me up to speed on why one Zuiko
> 200mm f/4 lens I've seen has what its owner called a "silver nose,"
> and the other two 200mm f/4 lenses I've seen lack this
> distinguishing characteristic?
>
> Are the silver nosed lenses older? More valuable? Better/worse
> performers?
>
> Thanks.
>
< 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 >
|