Question about OM Zuiko 24 mm F2.8 lens

<p>I'm interested in purchasing a 24 mm F2.8 OM lens. The question I have is this. Was this lens issued in a multicoated version and if so, how can I recognize a multicoated version of this lens ? Also, anyone know how the performance of the 24 mm F 2.0 lens is compared to the F 2.8 version ?</p>

<p>Single coated, flare prone and the hood is an absolute must. You need to stop it down a bit to get sharp images. No idea on the 24/2. It is reputedly better. Pricey as well.</p>

According to <a href="http://www.datasync.com/~farrar/zuiko.html">this reference</a>, some versions of the lens are multicoated. Under a tungsten light, my 24 f2.8 shows reddish and greenish reflections of the light, and I suspect that it's multicoated. By comparison, I have a 100 f2.8 that I believe is singlecoated; it shows single-color yellowish reflections in the same light.

<p>There are 3 types of OM Zuiko 24mm f2.8 lens. Oldest type, single coated, has silver edged filter ring. Second type is ALSO single coated but has black edge filter ring. Third type is multicoated, black filter ring but does NOT have MC on name ring (this is known as "nmc" version). John</p>

<p>I purchased a used Zuiko 24 f2.8 back in 1992 and a brand new one in 2002. They both appeared to be multicoated as the elements reflect many different colors, rainging from green, magenta, deep red and blue. Both were 'black nosed' with just 'Zuiko' on the front ring. Both copies of this lens provided superb sharpness, good speed and are tiny (31mm long?). This lens was my favorite for many years and the only reason I don't use is as much now is because I got hold of a 21 f2.0. I have now sold the oldest one, but would not part with the newer one.</p>

<p>I have never used the 24 f2.0 but would likely have purchased one, had I not got the 21mm. From information I have read on the web, the performance is not much better than the 2.8 version, but you do get the close focus mechanism that is inherent on many of the f2.0 zuiko's. And of course, you get the lovely large front element! Naturally, there is an increase in weight and size (and it uses 55mm filters), but it is not prohibitive - my 21mm f2 is a similar size to the 24 f2 and I have never found it to be a hinderance.</p>

<p>If you can get a multicaoted 2.8 version, go for it - I don't think you will be disappointed.</p>

<p>Cheers, Steve.</p>

<p>i'm interested in getting one of these as well, has anyone compared the 24/2.8 with the 28/2.8 as I already own the latter and I want to know if it's sharper and noticably wider</p>

<p>The Oly 24/2.8 is perhaps the best 24mm made by anyone, and most likely the best made by Olympus. I have both it and the 24/2, (and the 24/3.5 shift), they are all excellent but given the price difference, etc. the 24/2.8 is really a gem.<br>

the 28/3.5 is quite nice too, and preferred over the 28/2.8. The price of the 28/3.5 is a steal, too. the 28/2 is the best of the bunch but for the price, the 28/3.5 is hard to beat, really.</p>

<p>the 24/2.8is a serious step up from the 28/2.8, really night and day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Oly 24/2.8 is perhaps the best 24mm made by anyone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh, what about the Leica 24mm ASPH-M? Beware hyperbolic statements!</p>

<p>Looking at a slew there may actually be 4 versions. John mentioned 3 of them, but I have seen a few black filter ring ones that have MC on the front of them. In general single coated lens have X. Zuiko on the front and multicoated simply say Zuiko (possibly with MC or without). The X is a letter from E. through J. I believe, it corresponds to the number of elements in the lens. So a G. Zuiko has 7 elements, and F. zuiko has 6 elements, etc.<br>

Anything that omits the MC designation, but is multicoated appears to be NMC coated. I've heard it may stand for new multi coated or maybe nano multicoated. At any rate this final version seems to be the best for a lot of the Zuiko lenses, there are probably exceptions though.<br>

A couple of sites have test data on the 24/2.8 and the 24/2. The 24/2 doesn't seem to be any better (image quality wise), but it does go a stop wider and has the close focus compensation mechanism which probably yields at least slightly better pictures when your close to the minimum focusing distance.</p>

<p>I had a MC 24/2.8 for at least 20 years and it was a stellar performer. Very nice, all the way to f/2.8. Of course, better stopped down, but very usable wide open. My 24/2.0 is a little better with it's extra stop and super bright finder, but not enough to justify the cost if that's an issue. Use the hoods, they make a big difference, even more with a SC lens. Some 24/2.0 lenses have been reported to have waveform distortion; I've never seen it, but it's been talked about since the 80's.<br>

The f/2.8 is not the "best 24mm lens made", but it's hard to beat for the price. Highly recommended I also agree that the 24/2.8 is much better than the 28/2.8, which was pretty pedestrian. The 28/3.5 is OK, but nothing to write home about. As the number one lens made behind the 50/1.8, it's superbly plentiful and dirt cheap. You could get one of those for $30?<br>

<br /> Regarding SC/MC: For the 24/2.8, if it says "MC", it's multi-coated. If it's got a silver front trim ring, it's almost certainly SC. In between, "maybe". Look at the color of the reflections in the coatings. If they're magenta and/or green, it's MC. If they're yellow, it's SC.<br /> Skip</p>

<p>"Huh, what about the Leica 24mm ASPH-M?"</p>

<p>Um, yeah. good luck mounting that on an SLR. And I'd still take the Zuiko anyway. Esp. when you factor price into the equation.<br>

Here's some good references on the OM 24/2.8 vs. the rest of the world:<br>

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The OM 24/2.8 did very well in a UK camera mag test I recall in the early 80s. Only Nikkor and one other scored as highly.<br>

A friend of mine uses his 24/2.8 a great deal and says it is comparable with his 21/3.5 (he really likes both BTW). I think the importance of multicoating is exaggerated. I like my SC example, but then I also like the MC 28/2.8 I now use, and can't be bothered testing them - life's too short and film's not as cheap as it was.<br>

As Skip says, the 24/2 has a reputation for waveform distortion. It is naturally larger and heavier (with 55mm filter ring), though Olympus still managed to make it comparatively small and light for its class. I don't recall any tests or user reports stating that it performs any better than its slower stablemate.</p>

<p>I own both the 24 F2 and the 24 F2.8. I bought the 24 F2.8 new in 1999 and it is multicoated.<br>

My 24 F2 is an old silver ringed one that I bought 2nd hand many years ago. It is multicoated too.<br>

I bought the F2.8 because my F2 grew some fungus on one of the internal elements that could not be cleaned off.<br>

I have not done any direct comparisons but my impression is the images from my 2.8 version seem to have bit more contrast and bite, I am constantly impressed with this lens.<br>

Although my F2 lens performed well and I never had any complaints with it, I would not spend the extra money required to purchase the F2 version over the F2.8, as the F2.8 performs, as well if not better than F2 version in my view.</p>

<p>I could of course be very, very wrong since I don't have any hard evidence such as part numbers or anything, but I get the impression that Zuiko changed the opitics on some of their lenses over the years, even when it isn't obvious because they kept the same number of elements and same grouping. For instance in the 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses the same number of elements and groupings were kept over the years, but the optics were deffinitely changed (this I know) and it shows in the performance of the lenses. The 85mm f/2 was also changed, though the grouping and number of elements was changed as well. Its my impression, that at least a few of the other lenses had some changes over the years as well. If nothing else the coating really should have minimal impact on the image quality of the lens (outside of veiling and flare), yet there does seem to be a difference in image quality at least with some of the lenses between earlier single coated and later multicoated lenses. I am really just hypothesising that, but I just can't see the coating making much difference, but it really seems to in a number of the lenses (outside of the 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/2 which I know had the optics modified over the years).</p>

<p>It is a fantastic lens. It is the oldest lens I own among my Zuikos. It captured beautiful memories for me.<br /> Here are some samples:<br /> <img src="http://k41.pbase.com/g1/44/535144/2/89064236.ImUQl3aj.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="542" /> <br /> <img src="http://i.pbase.com/g3/44/535144/2/92385268.b9MF6tzC.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p>More photos in my gallery at<br>

http://www.pbase.com/rudiknust/zuiko_f28_24mm</p>

 

<p>I just purchased a 24 f/2.8 on KEH... oh yeah!</p>

<p>I just got a 24/2.8 in ebay last night. So much looking forward to hold such tiny stuff in my hand.<br /><br />I did many researches days before. Of coz have read through every words in this post, thanks all useful info from all of you. The lens test of 16-9.net is great, thanks <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3445742">Ed Sawyer</a>.<br /><br />During my purchase, I was confused by the lens name and the MC/SC issue. Most of them are marked H.Zukio, some are Zukio, MC or not etc. Finally I found a very useful info whcih answered all my queries. I think it is a good answer to the 1st question asked by <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2336169">John Afflitto</a> too. It help me to mark my main aim, then woke up at 4am last night. Lucky, I got it. <br /><br />Share with you guys:-<br /><br />

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="539">

<colgroup span="1"><col span="1" width="64"></col><col span="1" width="77"></col><col span="1" width="60"></col><col span="2" width="70"></col><col span="1" width="103"></col><col span="1" width="95"></col></colgroup>

<tbody>

<tr height="44">

<td width="64" height="44"><strong>Focal Length</strong></td>

<td width="77"><strong>Aperture</strong></td>

<td width="60"><strong>S/N</strong></td>

<td width="70"><strong>Chrome/ Black</strong></td>

<td width="70"><strong>Coating</strong></td>

<td width="103"><strong>MarkedMC?</strong></td>

<td width="95"><strong>Lens Name</strong></td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2</td>

<td >101160</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >Yes</td>

<td >Zuiko MC</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2</td>

<td >113400</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >113994</td>

<td >Chrome</td>

<td >SC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >H.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >116100</td>

<td >Chrome</td>

<td >SC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >G.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >140037</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >H.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >143400</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >SC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >H.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >145300</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >SC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >H.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >160293</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >SC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >X.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >171478</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >SC?</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >H.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >174440</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >SC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >H.Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >185300</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >Yes</td>

<td >Zuiko MC</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >187087</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >Yes</td>

<td >Zuiko MC</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >211000</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >Zuiko</td>

</tr>

<tr height="22">

<td height="22">24</td>

<td >2.8</td>

<td >218300</td>

<td >Black</td>

<td >MC</td>

<td >No</td>

<td >Zuiko</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<br /><br />Btw, want to get a 55/1.2 or 50/1.2 the next. But very hard to found.</p>

<p>Some or all of these photos were taken with a borrowed Zuiko 24mm.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/tom_77/shiroka<br>

I took an OM-2n with 24mm and 50mm Zuikos to <a href="http://www.simonevans.co.uk/dublin.htm">Dublin</a> (Ireland) for 3 days with some HP5 Plus and an orange filter. Loved the minimalist kit, though could have used the 100mm a couple of times. Sorry the jpegs aren't any bigger. I also enjoy using the 24mm with <a href="http://www.simonevans.co.uk/sfx200.htm">SFX200</a> infrared film and a 25a red filter.</p>