If you look at Gary Reese's lens tests for the 35/2.8
<http://web.archive.org/web/20050208000949/members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm>
look first at the single coated and multicoated tests done on the OM-1.
If you read the fine print on his test conditions he notes that,
unless done in a paired comparison test, differences between two tests
are only considered to be significant if the ratings are at least a full
letter grade apart. The only conditions where that occurs on resolution
is center resolution at f/2.8 and f/4. One can also find several points
where at least one full grade difference can be found in the OM-2s and
OM4T tests as well.
But resolution is not the only measure. The lenses do differ somewhat
in contrast, vignetting and distortion. What's hard to tell is if the
variations to be seen between single and multi-coated lenses here are
any larger than sample to sample variations of the same type of lens.
But since we do know there are design differences between single and
multicoated I'd keep them of the same type without worrying too much
about which type.
Chuck Norcutt
DrT (George Themelis) wrote:
> Thanks Ken,
>
>> BTW, you will definitely want to match series of 35/2.8 lenses. The
>> silvernosed (singlecoated) lenses are different than the later blacknosed
>> (multicoated) variety. Either are excellent lenses, but the optical
>> formula
>> is altered. Not nearly as much as other lenses, but there is a
>> difference.
>
> Is the "blacknosed" more desirable since it is multicoated?
>
> Does it really make a difference in use?
>
> George
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|