When pre-release photos of the 100L Macro IS went the rounds on FM I thought it was fake because of the build quality. I could imagine the decision on using engineering plastic is to lighten the weight.

Now how would you feel if Canon continued this initial foray and decided to use engineering plastic more liberally in future L glass. Like say the updates to the 35, 135, 180 macro, super teles and the zooms?

If the plastic is as robust as a metal barrel at 1/3 the weight, I'd go for it. I wonder if you know that a large number of L's already have plastic or plastic derived barrels, including your 35L.

I've held the 100L and it feels very solid like the other L lenses I've held. No need to worry, as long as there's a red ring around the lens barrel

The EOS-1 and EOS 1N had outer shells made of engineering plastic. Great stuff, and doesn't freeze your hands in cold weather.

Now, of course - the body cladding is almost always that magnesium mix...

I thought the 135 L was already plastic. I haven't used mine in a bit though so I stand to be corrected.

I agree.

The 100 L feels great and seems lighter than a metal shell, so I'm all for it.

It is. Current plastic Ls (and there may be more, including I think, the 14L and the 16-35, but I'm not positive on those two):

17-40L
24-105L
24L
35L
50L
100L
135L
70-200 f/4L
70-200 f/4L IS (both of the 70-200s have plastic barrels with metal zoom and focus rings...many of the above lenses do have metal focus rings, but the main body is plastic).

The 100L's plastic feels more like plastic than the previous plastic Ls because of the finish (much more matte), but it's a very well built lens. Nice and tight tolerances, smooth focus ring, weathersealed and lightweight.

plastic bad metal good
canon bad leica good
transistors bad valves good
ducati bad harley davidson good
etc.
etc.

brainiac wrote:
ducati bad harley davidson good
How can you say that!

Ducati's are great; only ridden a Buell though so not had the full Harley esperience yet.

brainiac wrote:
plastic bad metal good
canon bad leica good
transistors bad valves good
ducati bad harley davidson good
etc.
etc.


I HHHHHHHHATE harleys. Have you seen the latest south park episode? HILARIOUS.

+1 on hating Harleys even though I own a Ford F-350 Harley.

Go Yamaha!

I am just surprised that unlike tripods there haven't been a market driven push towards using carbon fiber

It is not called "plastic" since it carries a negative stigma but the actual name used is "polycarbonate".

vince wrote:
If the plastic is as robust as a metal barrel at 1/3 the weight, I'd go for it. I wonder if you know that a large number of L's already have plastic or plastic derived barrels, including your 35L.

It's about time; metal is overrated and overweight

Speaking of plastic vs metal.... For those of you who were band geeks, you might remember the wonky tuning on your brass instruments when you stepped outside to march around in cold weather. The temperature affects the contraction and expansion of metals a lot more than plastic. Has anyone ever thought about that when designing/using metal lenses in cold weather? I was especially thinking of long lenses where the effects might be magnified. I'm not really sure what those effects might be though...

G. Thomas wrote:
The temperature affects the contraction and expansion of metals a lot more than plastic. Has anyone ever thought about that when designing/using metal lenses in cold weather?

That's what engineers do. No lens you have ever used has had thermal stability ignored in the design process.

Now how would you feel if Canon continued this initial foray and decided to use engineering plastic more liberally in future L glass. Like say the updates to the 35, 135, 180 macro, super teles and the zooms?

Some plastics have better mechanical properties than steel. Look at Formula 1 or Boeing 787, for example. I believe some of the white lenses also have lots of plastic parts, the 100L is however probably first lens that I have with barrel that seems to be made out of polycarbonate completely. It looks sturdy and I don't have any problem with that.

gotak wrote:
I am just surprised that unlike tripods there haven't been a market driven push towards using carbon fiber

Thank God for that. Could you imagine how much a lens barrel designed from CF would cost...

As long as they update the 35, 135, 180 macro, super teles and zooms properly, I don't care what they make them out of.

KIDERAL wrote:
Go Yamaha!

Go Crutchlow! Go Spies!! Go Rossi!!!

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

The 35L is already a big brick of glass... a metal shell would make it way too heavy. Glad it's plastic.

+1 .... and keep the prices competitive/affordable, I might add.

Daniel Bates wrote:
As long as they update the 35, 135, 180 macro, super teles and zooms properly, I don't care what they make them out of.

Jman13 wrote:
It is. Current plastic Ls (and there may be more, including I think, the 14L and the 16-35, but I'm not positive on those two):

17-40L
24-105L
24L
35L
50L
100L
135L
70-200 f/4L
70-200 f/4L IS (both of the 70-200s have plastic barrels with metal zoom and focus rings...many of the above lenses do have metal focus rings, but the main body is plastic).


The EF 200 2.8L USM is also plastic fantastic. No problems with mine.

Plastic fantastic alla round- especially in lieu of some glass as well.