Jim Schemel wrote:
Bob,
thanks for trying.I am on the lookout for a nice 24mm and i know this one is always mentioned.but i have heard there is a difference between the MC and Non MC.
-Jim
Jim,
I fixed the link so you can see the pictures now.
I did a lot of research on this before buying a lens because I, too, have heard that there is difference between multicoated and non-multicoated lenses. Apparently, before a certain period in Olympus OM lens-making history, some lenses were made with multicoating and others were made with a single coating and the presence or absence of the letters "MC" on the front ring indicates whether the lens is multicoated or single coated. At some point, certainly by the time the latest 24mm f/2.8 (with "Japan" on the front ring) were made, all 24mm f/2.8 lenses were made with multicoating. I have not done much research on any other OM lenses (with the exception of a little on the 50mm f/1.8) but according to the following, it appears this information may be of more general import:
One of my references contains this interesting statement:
"NB: According to Olympus America, the way to tell if a lens is
multicoated is to look at the writing on the front. If the lens has an
element letter (eg G.Zuiko) it is single coated. If it lacks the
element letter, and/or has MC on the front, it is multicoated."
If anyone here has more information, please contribute to this discussion!
I did a lot of research on this before buying a lens because I, too, have heard that there is difference between multicoated and non-multicoated lenses. Apparently, before a certain period in Olympus OM lens-making history, some lenses were made with multicoating and others were made with a single coating and the presence or absence of the letters "MC" on the front ring indicates whether the lens is multicoated or single coated. At some point, certainly by the time the latest 24mm f/2.8 (with "Japan" on the front ring) were made, all 24mm f/2.8 lenses were made with multicoating. I have not done much research on any other OM lenses (with the exception of a little on the 50mm f/1.8) but according to the following, it appears this information may be of more general import:
One of my references contains this interesting statement:
"NB: According to Olympus America, the way to tell if a lens is
multicoated is to look at the writing on the front. If the lens has an
element letter (eg G.Zuiko) it is single coated. If it lacks the
element letter, and/or has MC on the front, it is multicoated."
If anyone here has more information, please contribute to this discussion!
Yes, I have this link. Unfortunately, it only lists examples that the author found of specific lenses that are multicoated or not, not ranges of serial numbers.
The type 1 lens gives no indication of coating and has the front ring markings H.Zuiko Auto-W 1:2.8 f=24mm.
The type 2 lens seems to indicate a coating "(C)" and has the same front ring markings as the type 1 lens.
The type 3 lens indicates NMC (multicoating) and was made initially with the front ring markings: Zuiko MC Auto-W 1:2.8 f=24mm and subsequently Zuiko Auto-W 24mm 1:2.8.
The same reference listed above (olympus.dementia.org) also contains the following:
"By the time single coated lenses were replaced by multicoated versions, the preceding characters were dropped and the characters MC (=multicoated) were put after the word ZUIKO. The first lenses that were labeled as such were the lenses that were never made in a single coated version: the 18mm/F3.5, 21mm/F2, 24mm/F2, 28mm/F2 and 35mm/F2 lenses. Strangely enough these lenses appear in early lens tables with the preceding characters but they were put into production the the MC inscription.
Fisheye lenses, Shift lenses, Zoom lenses and Macro lenses never carried the preceding characters.
Once multicoating was so self-evident, that all lenses were produced multicoated, the MC addition was also dropped and the lenses only contained the word ZUIKO."
rtallent wrote:
In my continuing research I have come across this parts manual for this lens, which gives information about three versions made:
.....
Once multicoating was so self-evident, that all lenses were produced multicoated, the MC addition was also dropped and the lenses only contained the word ZUIKO."
I hope this is helpful information.
Bob
IMO, as a general rule, look for one without MC and preceding characters. As you can see from the url above, even late multi-coated comes with different variation of multi-coatings. Add sample variation to the equation. Add adaptation to digital use. it is trial and error which copy will be stellar. In this forum, many has vouched for 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/3.5. So there are probably more success with this lot. I would also think any of the macro and ED lenses will be good regardless of what's on the face plate.
I like the butterfly picture very much. The bokeh of this lens at close distance is something unique.
A drawing style I have not yet seen with any other 50mm lens. Looks like strokes from an oil paint brush.
The following image was taken with the same Zuiko f/1.2 50mm and shows similar characteristics,
although it had been shown already in the "bokeh" thread.
ManWearPants wrote:
IMO, as a general rule, look for one without MC and preceding characters. As you can see from the url above, even late multi-coated comes with different variation of multi-coatings. Add sample variation to the equation. Add adaptation to digital use. it is trial and error which copy will be stellar. In this forum, many has vouched for 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/3.5. So there are probably more success with this lot. I would also think any of the macro and ED lenses will be good regardless of what's on the face plate.
From what I have read, I would agree with you. This discussion started when I was asked if the 24/2.8 I am using is MC or not. I indicated that it is and is the latest version ("Japan"), which does not have the preceding letters or "MC" on the front ring. My posts on this subject have been meant only to help others who are wondering about OM lenses and multicoating. My personal interest in OM lenses does not currently extend beyond the 24/2.8 (although I have a 50/1.8 – also latest version).
Thanks for contributing to the knowledge base on this subject!
I like the butterfly picture very much. The bokeh of this lens at close distance is something unique.
A drawing style I have not yet seen with any other 50mm lens. Looks like strokes from an oil paint brush.
The following image was taken with the same Zuiko f/1.2 50mm and shows similar characteristics,
although it had been shown already in the "bokeh" thread.
Yup, and that distance is effectively doubled on a 2:1 crop sensor (over a FF sensor). Another advantage of M4/3 I think. That's an odd point... Many people here say there is less DOF control on a M4/3 body... In fact there is twice as much so I never understand WTH they're talking about. [shrug]
ManWearPants wrote:
In this forum, many has vouched for 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/3.5. So there are probably more success with this lot.
Indeed those lenses are some serious glass! I just took the 28/3.5 for a spin today. Here are the results - with very little or no sharpening added and all wide open (as if WO at f/3.5 is a feat or something ):
rtallent wrote:
From what I have read, I would agree with you. This discussion started when I was asked if the 24/2.8 I am using is MC or not. I indicated that it is and is the latest version ("Japan"), which does not have the preceding letters or "MC" on the front ring. My posts on this subject have been meant only to help others who are wondering about OM lenses and multicoating. My personal interest in OM lenses does not currently extend beyond the 24/2.8 (although I have a 50/1.8 ?also latest version).
Thanks for contributing to the knowledge base on this subject!
):