35mm F2.8 MC vs SC opinions wanted

I am looking to buy a 35mm F2.8 lens. I know they came in two flavors

MC and SC versions. If you have experiance with either or both, I

would appreciate your opinion to help guide my purchase. I have read

the Gary Reese test review, and in his hands the SC seemed better on

an OM-4t. Thank you

You must understand that Gary is a professional scientist (biologist, I think) and so he didn't bother to state what any professional scientist notices first about these tests: 1) One one or two samples of any one lens was tested. 2) The tests are not always directly comparable.

 

The tests are a starting point, not an end point.

 

My own experience with Zuikos is that they don't tolerate misuse or inexpert repair at all well, so condition matters most.

 

I also suspect people may be looking at the Reese tests and posting to various places on the net as if they have run their own tests.

Hello Michael,

 

I bought a 35/2.8 new several years ago. Optically, it is a very fine

lens. The center is quite useable at f/2.8. At f/4, it is excellent

and gets slightly better at f/5.6. After that, diffraction begins to

lower performance. The sides and corners at predictably soft at f/2.8

but improve quite a bit at f/4. They peak at f/8. I've got about 12

Zuikos and this is one of the best. It is better than the 35/2 I

bought about 20 years ago, that lens suffering from a great deal of

curvature of field. In fact, I remember the clerk in Tokyo strongly

recommending the f/2.8 over the f/2.

 

The 35/2.8 has a solid reputation here. It is constantly cited in

reviews of OM lenses as one of the better ones. Yet Gary Reese's

tests show it to be a rather ordinary lens. One possible explanation

is lens sample. I've heard that especially among the earlier

production runs, there could be a great deal of lens to lens

variation. Another explanation could be that Olympus improved the

lens over time, even though the optical formula is the same. However,

in the case of the 35/2.8 it had a good reputation from the

beginning, including the SC version.

 

I have never used the SC 35/2.8. But I do have a 28/3.5 and a 28/2.8.

The f/3.5 is SC, the f/2.8 MC. I prefer the older f/3.5's performance

overall. Only occasionally, with very bright, flarey light, is the MC

f/2.8 a better choice.

 

The most important thing is to test the individual lens before you

buy. In principle, the 35/2.8 is a fine lens but a given sample may

be a dog, either from faulty manufacturing or mis-use.

I asked this same question a few months ago, and Gary Reese responded.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006J1w

I have an old, rather worn SC 35/2.8 and have no complaints about its performance. See <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/406755&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/406755&size=lg</a>, scanned from what I consider to be a beautifully sharp and detailed 12x8" R3 print.

<br><br>

Personally I think SC vs MC is not worth losing sleep over. Perfectly good photos can be made with SC lenses. A friend of mine was so disappointed with his 35/2.8 MC he sold it.

<br><br>

If you expect to be shooting into bright sun or in other flare-prone conditions frequently then you might prefer the MC. If you regularly shoot in low light you'll appreciate the f2 version. Either way it's the results that count, and a tripod (and perhaps a lens hood) is likely to make a bigger difference than lens coatings. For that matter, any lens tested on an OM4Ti (where Gary used the mirror & aperture prefire, a superior method to the OM1's MLU) is going to perform better than the same lens mounted on the OM1.

Actually Gary has mentioned on various occasions the sample group limitations of his tests. He probably just gets tired of repeating it with every post. His tests are unique among all those I've seen on the web. It just takes some effort to correctly interpret them and to understand their significance and limitations.