What's up with plastic lens barrels? Back in the day every manufacturer's top of the line offerings had some type of metal lens barrel, but now everyone makes them out plastic.

I get it...it's cheap and lightweight.

The trouble is, it's cheap and lightweight.

I don't mind that from companies like Tamron, but the big companies at least ought to offer a couple of versions (kind of like how Sigma once sold a contemporary and sport version of the (kind of) same lens).

As a hobbyist, I'm after build quality and satisfaction of feel more than out and out performance.

I don't know if others feel the same. Perhaps I'm in the minority here.

Sensei Rob wrote:

Back in the day every manufacturer's top of the line offerings had some type of metal lens barrel, but now everyone makes them out plastic.

Now plastic often out performs metal in many ways.

it's cheap and lightweight.

That can be a real advantage.  Less expensive and not as heavy.

As a hobbyist, I'm after build quality and satisfaction of feel more than out and out performance.

Build quality may have actually improved...though it doesn't feel like that

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011 wrote:

Sensei Rob wrote:

Back in the day every manufacturer's top of the line offerings had some type of metal lens barrel, but now everyone makes them out plastic.

Now plastic often out performs metal in many ways.

I'm not sure it does. The trouble with polymers are they're susceptible to UV damage, which, over time, cause them to become brittle. So far as I can tell, this issue hasn't been solved.

In terms of strength, even carbonfibre reinforced plastics fall well short of a good steel. They're more scratch resistant, though, I'll give them that.

it's cheap and lightweight.

That can be a real advantage. Less expensive and not as heavy.

True.

As a hobbyist, I'm after build quality and satisfaction of feel more than out and out performance.

Build quality may have actually improved...though it doesn't feel like that

I dunno. If you look at a good nikkor lens from the pre-ai days, or even a fairly modern one with the crinkle finish (e.g. 28mm f1.4D), they're about as good as build quality gets. Also, I think vintage Leica lenses (like the 50mm summicron dual range) are built better than modern Leica lenses - but they don't count, since they're both metal. I wrote all that just to say I don't think build quality has improved.

An interesting tidbit; early Sony E mount lenses (like the Zeiss collaborations) were made of metal, but the newer ones aren't.

Sensei Rob wrote:

What's up with plastic lens barrels? Back in the day every manufacturer's top of the line offerings had some type of metal lens barrel, but now everyone makes them out plastic.

I get it...it's cheap and lightweight.

The trouble is, it's cheap and lightweight.

I don't mind that from companies like Tamron, but the big companies at least ought to offer a couple of versions (kind of like how Sigma once sold a contemporary and sport version of the (kind of) same lens).

As a hobbyist, I'm after build quality and satisfaction of feel more than out and out performance.

I don't know if others feel the same. Perhaps I'm in the minority here.

I used to favour metal-built things over plastic, but then I started photography in the 80s, when plastic became ubiquitous. And a lot of it was very cheap and nasty, flimsy and fragile. The cheap feel of early Canon EOS SLRs put me off that brand totally. And yes, I much preferred older metal Nikkor lenses to the new flimsy plastic AF versions, even if the newer ones were optically better. But now, many companies, Nikon especially, make products using plastic that are just as good if not better than their metal ancestors. Plastic is more flexible and resilient, less prone to expansion and contraction due to heat cycles, doesn't corrode or need special anti-corrosion treatment, and can be easily formed in more comfortable and ergonomic shapes. Yes, plastics can wear quicker and warp, and not fit as well, leading to rattly and flimsy mechanisms that go out of whack too easily, but Nikon for example ensure they use metal components where necessary and the better option. I once tried a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Whatever lens and it was so poorly made, it actually went out of focus if you tapped it. Like the lens elements were rattling around loose inside. It seems manufacturing standards have improved since then though.
For me, lightweight is better. You don't want to be lugging around several kilos of metal when travelling.

Sensei Rob wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Sensei Rob wrote:

Back in the day every manufacturer's top of the line offerings had some type of metal lens barrel, but now everyone makes them out plastic.

Now plastic often out performs metal in many ways.

I'm not sure it does

Still it does in many ways

The trouble with polymers are they're susceptible to UV damage, which, over time, cause them to become brittle.

Many of today's high end polymers are made with additives that make them practically unaffected by UV. Many/most modern Polycarbonates, for example. Car and Aircraft industry are the leaders in that

In terms of strength, even carbonfibre reinforced plastics fall well short of a good steel. They're more scratch resistant, though, I'll give them that.

Polycarbonate can withstand forces nearly 200 times stronger than steel. 2DPA-1 and Hemp Plastics are also much stronger than steel

it's cheap and lightweight.

That can be a real advantage. Less expensive and not as heavy.

True.

As a hobbyist, I'm after build quality and satisfaction of feel more than out and out performance.

Build quality may have actually improved...though it doesn't feel like that

I dunno. If you look at a good nikkor lens from the pre-ai days, or even a fairly modern one with the crinkle finish (e.g. 28mm f1.4D), they're about as good as build quality gets.

Not sure about that...they dent. I have broke an older Nikon lens in a bump, 70-200, but have yet to break any of my plastic lenses...and I'm get more and more clumsy

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

--
Stupidity is far more fascinating than intelligence. Intelligence has its limits...

METAL

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3004af.htm

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7183568896/lensrentals-teardown-reveals-the-guts-of-the-strong-like-bull-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-lens

Mako2011 wrote:

Polycarbonate can withstand forces nearly 200 times stronger than steel. 2DPA-1 and Hemp Plastics are also much stronger than steel

This is a bit of a weird one. You'll often hear things like "spider silk is stronger than steel", or in this case, various plastics are stronger than steel, but the figures never really hold up.

For example, if you look at the young's modulus (the point at which a material elastically deforms), you get these figures:

Hemp plastic: 23 GPa

2DPA-1: 12.7 GPa

Steel: 150 - 200 GPa

In terms of tensile strength, you get:

Hemp plastic: 60.2 MPa

2DPA-1: 488 MPa

Steel: 950 - 2690 MPa

Unless my knowledge of physics is totally corrupted, I'd say the plastic strength claims are probably made by manufacturers of plastics.

Not that any of that matters, because camera lens cases aren't made of those materials, but you know, I just like something solid.

Supisiche wrote:

METAL

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3004af.htm

That's a fantastic lens, if you don't need it to AF any time today. Truly one of the slowest AF lenses I've ever used, and that's up there with the older AF Nikkor Micros. You're relying on the AF motor in the camera, to drive the tiny mechanical screw system that moves the lens elements about to achieve focus. Almost ok on something like an F4, but not really on a lower AF body like an F90 or F801s. The move to plastic components and internal AF lens focussing motors sped things up no end. The 300mm f4 AF-D is optically superb, but focussly sub-optimal.