Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] SC vs MC (how to tell them apart)

Subject: Re: [OM] SC vs MC (how to tell them apart)
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:05:00 -0700
If not worried about possible obscure outliers that may or may not exist, the eSIF page <http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif/lensgroup/lensterms.htm> is an excellent and reliable guide for prime lenses. This generally reflects the wisdom of the list and is likely more reliable than any books.

For zooms, the Multicoating Cross-Reference <http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/multicoat.txt> shows that all the zooms except the 75-150 were likely only made as MC. The referrences to MC 75-150s in lens handbooks is the source of the recent specualtion as to whether such a thing actually exists. Similar rules to the primes seem to generally apply about the 'MC' marking on the lens ring. The 35-70/3.6, introduced in '79, is marked MC and the 35-105, from '84, has no MC mark, but is multicoated.

Browsing through the Multicoating Survey results <http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mc-sc.survey> and Paul's Lens Coatings survey <http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/LensXCoatings.txt> generally supports these rules, although there are some obvious anomalies attributable to front rings changed when serviced, operater error and ???
Moose

whunter wrote:

I simply seek to differentiate SC from MC. Do any of the books published on the Olympus OM era provide tables of factual data relevant to this issue?




< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz