Boy, this thread has really morphed from wondering how a 28/2 looks on a 5D, to a good and lively discussion/dissertation on lens coatings. Even learned a new word to add to my vocabulary, "albedo". Good news is that the 28/2 is due here tomorrow (Wednesday)...with the missus out of town until the weekend, I'll have plenty of "undistracted time" to play with the 28 trio.
If anyone has any other links to photos with the 5D and 28/2, feel free to post them here or link.
Are you sure you have a 24-40 Zuiko sitting on your shelf? Have you actually used it? All kidding aside, who knows? I suppose there is that chance and, after all, we do know that your later 28 3.5 coating looks different than the earlier versions. The 28 3.5's I owned also looked like yours with that nice, rich magenta/amber reflection. I do have older lenses such as the Nikkor 20 UD I mentioned that also give that Magenta/Amber reflection and that is a lens known to not be multi coated.
cogitech wrote:
Tariq, while I can see that your arguments are as valid as mine on this issue, the above quotes are troublesome.
Why?
Because Olympus Japan also has no record of ever producing an MC Zuiko 24-40 f4 lens and I have one sitting on my shelf.
So, it would be putting it lightly to state that Olympus's record keeping is lackluster. If they can't keep track of a lens that they made, how can we expect that coating variations were documented accurately (or at all).
Knowing what I know, I still think it is entirely possible that my 28/3.5 has upgraded coatings (even if not MC) over older versions of the 28/3.5.
After all, if I own a lens that Olympus has no record of, I find it entirely possible that I have a 28/3.5 with coatings that Oly has no record of....Show more →
It's one of my favorite lenses, contrast is good, I use a collapsible hood on it and have not had flare problems. Another advantage with this lens is it goes from f3.5 to f5.6 in one click so it's very east to use in stop down mode.
...but yes, Mike, please use that free time to your advantage (and our benefit)
WOW, no, I had not seen that thread. Thanks for turning me on to it. Super Olympus info. I have a feeling that Laminin from that thread holds all the secrets regarding Olympus.
cogitech wrote:
On my single-coated 21/3.5, there is one colour.
On my 28/3.5 there are two on the front and three on the back.
I'm calling it multi-coated. I see it in the photos, as well.
(not sure what Tariq means about the two colours on the front of mine being in the same "spectrum", as there is only one "colour spectrum" that I know of).
Also, if you look at this photo of the OM lens line-up, what you will see is a wide variety of coatings. Green is not required for multi-coating.
A single coating can only achieve zero reflection at one wavelength and small reflectance in a narrow band around this wavelength. However, that wavelength varies with angle of incidence. Thus if the coating is tuned to green to minimise it's reflection at normal incidence the reflected colour could look magenta since we are only reflecting the blue and red ends of the spectrum. At non-normal incidence the colour could look totally different. The refractive index chosen for the AR coating is usually tuned for the middle of the spectrum ie around green to maximise the effect over the enitre spectrum as much as possible. So the bottom line even a single coating on a lens can produce different coloured reflections when viewed at different angles.
Things get a whole lot more complicated when mulitple coatings are employed.
From one of the fairly reliable independant Oly reference sites:
Single Coating (SC) vs. Multi Coating (MC)
It can be quite tricky to determine whether a lens is single coated or multi coated. The presence of the characters MC on the lens front ring is more or less an evidence, with one pitfall: the ring may have been replaced during a repair or maintenance job... The absence of the MC designation doesn't mean anything either - at a certain moment Olympus decided it had enough of this multicoating marketing hype, all new lenses were supposed to be multicoated anyway, and just removed the two characters. The X.Zuiko type designation also doesn't prove anything. The fast wide angles and the 18mm/F3.5 were designed multicoated from the very beginning and were initially designed (and maybe also produced and marketed) with the X.Zuiko designation!
The fact that the lens has a silver nose certainly has nothing to do with the coating. Although the gradual replacement of the silver nose by the black nose of all Zuiko lenses happened more or less simultaneously with the replacement of single coated lenses by multicoated lenses, the early multicoated lenses (the fast wide angles) had the MC designation but still had the silver nose.
Finally the color of the reflection from the lens is frequently mentioned. Multicoated lenses are supposed to have greenish reflections. Well just have a look at the picture below, scanned from The OM System Lens Handbook, edition October 1984, at the time most if not all lenses were multicoated. All colors are present, and no two coatings are identical....
and the reference to the 'picture below', is the one in the posting above.......
Pixel Perfect wrote:
So the bottom line even a single coating on a lens can produce different coloured reflections when viewed at different angles.
Things get a whole lot more complicated when mulitple coatings are employed.
The examples which have been given in the still photos posted are, of course, when the lens is viewed from one single angle. The vast majority of existing MC lenses will show both green and magenta reflections, simultaneously, when viewed from a single angle. One notable exception is Zeiss.
Brambling wrote:
From one of the fairly reliable independant Oly reference sites:
Single Coating (SC) vs. Multi Coating (MC)
It can be quite tricky to determine whether a lens is single coated or multi coated. The presence of the characters MC on the lens front ring is more or less an evidence, with one pitfall: the ring may have been replaced during a repair or maintenance job... The absence of the MC designation doesn't mean anything either - at a certain moment Olympus decided it had enough of this multicoating marketing hype, all new lenses were supposed to be multicoated anyway, and just removed the two characters. The X.Zuiko type designation also doesn't prove anything. The fast wide angles and the 18mm/F3.5 were designed multicoated from the very beginning and were initially designed (and maybe also produced and marketed) with the X.Zuiko designation!
The fact that the lens has a silver nose certainly has nothing to do with the coating. Although the gradual replacement of the silver nose by the black nose of all Zuiko lenses happened more or less simultaneously with the replacement of single coated lenses by multicoated lenses, the early multicoated lenses (the fast wide angles) had the MC designation but still had the silver nose.
Finally the color of the reflection from the lens is frequently mentioned. Multicoated lenses are supposed to have greenish reflections. Well just have a look at the picture below, scanned from The OM System Lens Handbook, edition October 1984, at the time most if not all lenses were multicoated. All colors are present, and no two coatings are identical....
and the reference to the 'picture below', is the one in the posting above.......
Out of curiosity, has anyone used both the Oly 28 F2 and the Zeiss 28 F2 (new or old versions). How do these two lenses perform relative to one another?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Out of curiosity, has anyone used both the Oly 28 F2 and the Zeiss 28 F2 (new or old versions). How do these two lenses perform relative to one another?
Yes, I had both. I sold the Zeiss. It's probably a better lens, but by so little, and it's bigger and heavier. For me the size difference was decisive. The optical difference was so small I didn't think it was worth having so much invested in the Zeiss. The Oly does have cup-shaped bokeh highlights and some barrel distortion though.
hi all.
i compared my new oly 28/2 with the zeiss 28/2.8.
and the zeiss is everywhere slightly more sharp and contrasty.
which makes it also more easy to focus with confim adapter.
but i think the zeiss is outstanding so the oly is still verey very good.
the oly is much more smaller and lighter and has 2.0 which is also
very good.
I've got the ZUico 28mm/2 too and have tested it against 28mm/3.5 Oly. I think the biggest difference is the brightness. Amazing. And yes, it is sharp wide open compared to 3.5 version. I have made the test shots and will only be able to post it at the end of Jan, will be in India for holidays.
I bought an Oly 28/2.8 to add something here.
I don't miss a fast lens here - well, not enough to justify the price diff.
Besides, slrlensreview.com says the 28/2.8 has better sharpness scores than its f/3.5 sibling. And it's a tad smaller! Go figure...
I think My XSi + Zuiko 28/2.8 will be my poorer equivalent of Richard's 5D + Zuiko 40/2... Well at least I have pop-up flash
Let's wait.
