View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
sonyrokkor
Joined: 24 Sep 2012 Posts: 222 Location: Perù, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject: zuiko 1,8/50 |
|
|
sonyrokkor wrote:
Hello.
Which is the OM zuiko 1,8/50 to look for?
The "JAPAN" version or the "MADE IN JAPAN" one?
Thanks in advance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: zuiko 1,8/50 |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
sonyrokkor wrote: |
Hello.
Which is the OM zuiko 1,8/50 to look for?
The "JAPAN" version or the "MADE IN JAPAN" one?
Thanks in advance. |
I'm sure there is a lot of parroting over this as some say "made in Japan" on the front and some say on the mount..well I have both versions and IMO the "made in Japan" on the front gives the same results as the one that hasn't. So I would like to see a comparison test as I can't see the difference in my two. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: zuiko 1,8/50 |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
sonyrokkor wrote: |
Hello.
Which is the OM zuiko 1,8/50 to look for?
The "JAPAN" version or the "MADE IN JAPAN" one?
Thanks in advance. |
I'm sure there is a lot of parroting over this as some say "made in Japan" on the front and some say on the mount..well I have both versions and IMO the "made in Japan" on the front gives the same results as the one that hasn't. So I would like to see a comparison test as I can't see the difference in my two. |
If I were you I would look for a site that has serial numbers for the various series of this lens. There were probably at least three variants of design and coatings, if my memory serves me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 Posts: 5883 Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=49692
I wouldn't sweat the diffrences _________________ -Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: zuiko 1,8/50 |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
sonyrokkor wrote: |
Hello.
Which is the OM zuiko 1,8/50 to look for?
The "JAPAN" version or the "MADE IN JAPAN" one?
Thanks in advance. |
I'm sure there is a lot of parroting over this as some say "made in Japan" on the front and some say on the mount..well I have both versions and IMO the "made in Japan" on the front gives the same results as the one that hasn't. So I would like to see a comparison test as I can't see the difference in my two. |
If I were you I would look for a site that has serial numbers for the various series of this lens. There were probably at least three variants of design and coatings, if my memory serves me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I know two differences on OM lenses, what is labeled with MC that is multi-coated others are single coated, I think Japan or Made in Japan irrelevant. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
berraneck
Joined: 24 May 2009 Posts: 972 Location: prague, czech republic
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
berraneck wrote:
in this case the bigger influence on picture quality will be the actual condition of lens rather than its version
however the MC version should start at sn ~1.9xx.xxx (circa) and the best are rumored to be sn 5.xxx.xxx , but I cannot tell for sure - I had few versions both SC and MC and all were same good _________________ equipment doesn´t count, good photographs do |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
berraneck wrote: |
in this case the bigger influence on picture quality will be the actual condition of lens rather than its version
however the MC version should start at sn ~1.9xx.xxx (circa) and the best are rumored to be sn 5.xxx.xxx , but I cannot tell for sure - I had few versions both SC and MC and all were same good |
These lenses are all fairly good, but obviously the later ones with multi-coatings are probably a little better. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
berraneck
Joined: 24 May 2009 Posts: 972 Location: prague, czech republic
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
berraneck wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
These lenses are all fairly good, but obviously the later ones with multi-coatings are probably a little better. |
that is surely true, but as you say, the difference is quite minor _________________ equipment doesn´t count, good photographs do |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
berraneck wrote: |
in this case the bigger influence on picture quality will be the actual condition of lens rather than its version
however the MC version should start at sn ~1.9xx.xxx (circa) and the best are rumored to be sn 5.xxx.xxx , but I cannot tell for sure - I had few versions both SC and MC and all were same good |
These lenses are all fairly good, but obviously the later ones with multi-coatings are probably a little better. |
Huh! "fairly good" ? _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Excalibur wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
berraneck wrote: |
in this case the bigger influence on picture quality will be the actual condition of lens rather than its version
however the MC version should start at sn ~1.9xx.xxx (circa) and the best are rumored to be sn 5.xxx.xxx , but I cannot tell for sure - I had few versions both SC and MC and all were same good |
These lenses are all fairly good, but obviously the later ones with multi-coatings are probably a little better. |
Huh! "fairly good" ? |
Normal moderately fast lenses from most Japanese makers are fairly good. Since these lenses are low-cost items, it is hard for any of them to be a state-of- the art design (in other words, they are not as good as theoretically possible, because such quality is cost-prohibitive). Very few normal lenses represent an all-out assault on the state of the art. It doesn't pay for makers to do that, as they can't sell them at a high-enough price to cover the investment.
The new 50mm APO-Summicrom ASPH from Leica, at $7000, is an example of that kind of approach. Few people will pay that much for a normal lens. I sure as hell would not!
If you are curious about this lens, here is a brief summary:
http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ymmot
Joined: 24 Sep 2011 Posts: 168
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ymmot wrote:
Not to get away from the question further with 7000 dollar lenses,
I don't think you should worry too much about the version either.
I haven't tested them against eachother, though.
There are versions of zuiko lenses that are MC even though it is not noted,
Any lens with F.Zuiko is likely SC,
Anything with Zuiko but without the F. in the name is almost certainly MC,
some of the newer ones were just not marked MC anymore (probably due to it becoming standard I guess).
See here:
http://olypedia.de/Zuiko_Auto-S_1:1%2C8/50_mm
(its in german, dont know about how well it translates using google)
You should probably be more worried about the glass being mark free, and try to score one with caps and hood (preferably the very nice metal one).
Also check for slow aperture blades, it is often the mechanism in the mount (not the blades themselves) having more viscosity due to some oil or just some gunk getting in it in these Zuikos. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Ymmot wrote: |
Not to get away from the question further with 7000 dollar lenses,
I don't think you should worry too much about the version either.
I haven't tested them against eachother, though.
There are versions of zuiko lenses that are MC even though it is not noted,
Any lens with F.Zuiko is likely SC,
Anything with Zuiko but without the F. in the name is almost certainly MC,
some of the newer ones were just not marked MC anymore (probably due to it becoming standard I guess).
See here:
http://olypedia.de/Zuiko_Auto-S_1:1%2C8/50_mm
(its in german, dont know about how well it translates using google)
You should probably be more worried about the glass being mark free, and try to score one with caps and hood (preferably the very nice metal one).
Also check for slow aperture blades, it is often the mechanism in the mount (not the blades themselves) having more viscosity due to some oil or just some gunk getting in it in these Zuikos. |
Ich habe dieses gefunden:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/50mm1a.htm
Most of the changes in such lenses were made to make the lenses cheaper to make as well as to improve their performance (but these improvements were only marginal). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
I have not directly compared the "Japan" to the "MIJ" versions, but I do know my MIJ version is very sharp and has great color, as does my 1.4, which I use most of the time. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
If they made a F1.4 version, why not just go for that one? _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ymmot
Joined: 24 Sep 2011 Posts: 168
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ymmot wrote:
The F1.4 is optically still very good, I have one as well and like it a lot.
However the F1.8 is slighly better as far as I know,
and the F1.4 is roughly three times more expensive in most cases.
So if you don't need the extra speed then there is no real reason to go for the F1.4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sonyrokkor
Joined: 24 Sep 2012 Posts: 222 Location: Perù, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
sonyrokkor wrote:
Thanks a lot, everybody.
Some information is here.
With this forum all is easy and fun. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dnas
Joined: 14 Nov 2008 Posts: 488 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dnas wrote:
I have 4 of the 5 different versions. IIRC, the first two versions have a different optical formula to the last 3.
I might try a comparison test, and post it!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
The "Japan" version also has "MC" designation on the front. The "made in Japan" omits "MC", and is a newer model internally (in Olympus servide manuals you can download from the well-known Web site) referred to as "NMC", whatever it stands for. If I remember correctly, there was a silent upgrade during the NMC era (which can be seen if you look through the service manuals); in particular, the aperture has been redesigned, as MC and 1-st gen NMC fifties were prone to slow/sticky aperture syndrome. IQ wise, there should be not much difference between them. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|