I just recently got MC Japan sn 3.37xxxx million Isn't it as good contrast & sharpness as the MIJ.Ive read dpreview threads &http://www.mir.com.my/...rdwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/index.htm &http://omexperience.wordpress.com/...sons-thoughts-misc/zuiko-50mm-shoot-out/Someone said there is an MC which is even more contrasty & sharper than MIJ ?

penfriendwrote:I just recently got MC Japan sn 3.37xxxx million Isn't it as good contrast & sharpness as the MIJ.Don´t worry, the MC is just like the MIJ already the newer version, after Oly changed from 6 elements in 5 groups to 6 elements in 4 groups in 1982.The oldest ones are F.Zuiko Auto-SM-system and silvernose, next ones were the F.Zuiko Auto-SOM-system and silvernose, after that the F.Zuiko Auto-S OM-systemwithoutsilvernose, followed bythe new 4 groups versionZuikoMCAuto-S in 1982 and then the last ones, Zuiko Auto-Swithout the MC.Someone said there is an MC which is even more contrasty & sharper than MIJ ?I´d say this can only be sample variation, from a constructive point of view they are identical.René

Ive now managed to get a MIJ 3.8xxxxx million. Should ive got a 5.xxxxxx million.

Managed to acquire a MIJ 5.1xxxxx million.When it is with me will give all three a run for sharpness wide open & stopped down.

penfriendwrote:I just recently got MC Japan sn 3.37xxxx million Isn't it as good contrast & sharpness as the MIJ.AFAIK, MC was dropped from SN: 3,2XX,XXX. The fact that you have SN: 3,37X,XXX labeled MC suggests that the lens was put together from cannibalized parts. The front plastic bezel is often damaged when removed as a couple drops of glue were applied to prevent it from coming loose. The front group (3 elements) comes in a sealed unit integral with the filter ring. If the lens was dropped and the filter ring bent, the only way to repair it is to replace the entire front unit. If the bezel was damaged during removal, it may have been replaced with another bezel bearing the "MC" designation.Although the later design (6E/4G) was carried through to the high 5,XXX,XXX serial numbers, the lens coatings were revised around 4,000,000 and again around 5,000,000. This may be due to a change in the glass types used as they became available and cost effective. These 50/1.8s retailed around $50 in the 80s. Less than the $85-100 price of the original F. ZUIKO (all metal) versions sold through the 70s.To cut costs and reduce weight, the focus and aperture rings were molded out of plastic. Who knows what was done to the optics to reduce cost. The MC versions had SN around 1,6XX,XXX to about 3,199,XXX. The earlier production units often developed the sticky aperture problem. Don't know where in the SN that was rectified - I think it was simply a change in lubricant used. SN above 3,200,000 is known to be good.SN 5,000,000 and up had a revised aperture blade assembly. Probably due to more precise linear motion required by the OM-2S and OM-40 which had "P" (program) mode. Nikon in their AI-S lens series adopted a linear movement of the aperture lever for the "A" and "P" modes. Olympus never adopted "A" mode in the OM camera line.Image quality from SN 3,200,000 and up should be very similar with slight variations in manufacturing.Contrary to popular belief, the F. ZUIKOs are multicoated. The OM lenses went into production since 1972 and all leading lens makers had some form of multi-coating - at least 3 layers. The more sophisticated coatings had up to 7 layers. Each layer is different and is effective at reducing internal reflections of light within a band of wavelengths. To cover a broader range of wavelengths, additional coatings were developed and applied. By reducing the internal reflections, contrast was improved. They did nothing to increase resolution (sharpness).Different types of optical glass required different types of coatings. That's why each lens design has different color coatings. The higher performance lenses used more expensive glass types. You will notice that the reflected colors are different at each glass element.During the 70s, consumers went for the cheaper third party lenses like Vivitar (VMC), Tamron (BBAR), etc. which advertised their own brand of multi-coating. Olympus started to label their lenses with "MC" to compete. Nikon was the only Japanese camera manufacturer (of the major 5 that survived) that never put any kind of MC label on their lenses - they didn't have to. Konica, a smaller manufacturer, also did not put any MC designation on their very reputable Hexanon lenses.Leica (Germany) did not have to advertise their multi-coating.By the mid-80s, MC was no longer a marketing strategy and most lens manufacturers dropped the designation.Someone said there is an MC which is even more contrasty & sharper than MIJ ?Do you believe everything written on the internet?Don't get hung up on which lens is sharper and performing target tests. The differences are minimal and noticeable when pixel peeping. The F.ZUIKOs 50/1.8 is noticeably softer at F1.8. By F2 the differences are small, and at F4 it's practically unnoticeable. Any slight camera shake would make those differences disappear.