M.J.Shupe Said:
> If it were true that nearly all old canon lenses had SSC coatings, then
> why would they specifically market a group of them marked that. I
> imagine that the technology did make it into the mainstream of canon
> lenses, but this is certainly not the case for early FD lenses or FL
> lenses. I don't know when canon came up with SSC lense, but prior (I
> think they had some marked SC as well?) but their prior coatings were
> not good.
M.J was responding to someone else's comments, but to the point:
Canon's original FD lenses were introduced in 1971 with the advent of the F-1
and the very early lenses did not have Spectra Coating (SC) or Super Spectra
Coating (SSC). In fact, I still own one of the first 35/2s and it has no
coating on it (The glass has actually turned yellow due to radioactive
components. Great for B&W photography ;-)
The later lenses that had the coatings were marked as such. Therefore you had
three (3) levels of coatings: (1) No label = no coating at all? (2) SC and (3)
SSC. This is why the SSCs are the most highly prized of the breech-lock
(older FD mount) lenses.
However, when the new FD mount (FDn) was introduced in 1981? with the advent
of the New F-1, I believe that all lenses from that point on had the SSC
coating by default and therefore Canon did not mark them as such. The next
higher step was the coating on the "L" lenses.
I believe that the case is still the same for the EOS lenses where you only
have two levels of coating: (1) normal (same formula as SSC?) and (2) "L".
Regards
Carlo Terlizzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
