Dharma Singh wrote:
> 2008/2/18, Piers Hemy <piers@xxxxxxxx>:
>
>> Made in Japan - it's a reference to the engraving on the front ring on the
>> latest version 50/1.8.
>>
As John has pointed out, it doesn't say "Made In Japan". It says "made
in Japan", so it is properly miJ.
>> Earlier versions did not have that phrase on the front ring.
>>
Earlier versions had the serial number on the front ring and the words
"LENS MADE IN JAPAN" on the mount. With the last of the significant
internal design changes, they dropped the "MC" on the front ring, moved
the serial # to the mount and the Japan id to the front ring, in effect
swapping them.
Not a bad idea, really, as a the front ring is plastic and not
uncommonly replaced in the course of a repair, changing the serial #.
>
> Thanks Piers.
> Do know about the different versions but didn't know the abbreviation.
>
> As a non-digital photographer I wonder: is there any relevance whether it's a
> MIJ 50/1.8 or not for using them on a digital camera?
>
Optically, the difference may be significant. The miJ version was
optically changed and has a reputation as the best of the series. As
higher spacial resolution on DSLRs has in some cases revealed previously
unknown shortcomings in older lenses, the difference might be greater
with digital - or not.
Mechanically, the early ones are really solid and reliable. My original
1973 model is still mechanically flawless, although no sharper than it
was back then. :-) The series marked "MC" have an unfortunate
tendency to develop sticky diaphragms. It appears that the helicoid
lubricant breaks down with age, heat, whatever, and some oily component
migrates to the diaphragm blades, causing them to become slow or stop
reopening altogether.
I've had several of these, and all but one displayed this problem to a
greater or lesser extent. It's not all that hard to repair at home, but
without a complete cleanout and relube, the problem is likely to return.
I had the same problem with one miJ lens, one of the lowest serial
number I've had, but not with 3-4 later ones, so the lubricant may not
have changed at the same time as the design and labeling.
Based on the serial # info the list collected and my own, it appears
that about half of all 50/1.8s were miJ models, so it shouldn't be hard
to find one. Were I looking for one, I'd pass on serial #s less than 4
million. Of the several that have passed through my hands, the one I've
kept is 5,8xx,xxx.
The truth is, though, that the over 1,085,000 50/1.4s are somewhat
better lenses.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|