How do you want them to upgrade the 135L?

halse wrote:
carbon fiber--- my guess is that Canon/Nikon are already seriously trying it out, the cost of CF at the strength and size needed for lenses isn't that much, figuring out the machining is probably the biggest hurdle at this time, CF baseball bats (about the same barrel diameter but much longer) can be had for under $200 these days, CF could help cut the weight of the 70-200 2.8 and the 400/500 etc

Technically, fiberglass' and carbon-fiber's full names are fiberglass/carbon fiber reinforced plastic. (FRP and CFRP) As others have said, it really is too bad people have certain stigmas with the name plastic.

Jman13 wrote:
^^^ That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. So, if it feels plastic, even if it's actually TOUGHER, and more resilient, and less likely to break, or dent, plus it doesn't freeze your fingers in the winter, nor does it expand or contract, therefore not having thermal affects on the lens alignment, and it's on one of the best optic designs they've ever produced...but it feels plastic, so NO WAY.


Seriously?

Yeah, look, a lot of people here want things that are sometimes downright stupid. What's wrong about getting a hunk of metal for something that costs arm and a leg? And honestly, did your fingers ever froze on your camera or lens?

Milan Hutera wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
^^^ That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. So, if it feels plastic, even if it's actually TOUGHER, and more resilient, and less likely to break, or dent, plus it doesn't freeze your fingers in the winter, nor does it expand or contract, therefore not having thermal affects on the lens alignment, and it's on one of the best optic designs they've ever produced...but it feels plastic, so NO WAY.


Seriously?

Yeah, look, a lot of people here want things that are sometimes downright stupid. What's wrong about getting a hunk of metal for something that costs arm and a leg? And honestly, did your fingers ever froze on your camera or lens?

Have my fingers ever been really cold on a camera and lens? Yes, any time I shoot with a metal lens in the winter. It's a BIG difference. My reaction is not based on you preferring metal lenses. There's something nice and satisfying about a solid metal build. I was referring to your complete dismissal of one of the best lenses Canon's made simply because the exterior 'feels plastic.' The fact is that a polycarbonate build is often MORE robust and lighter in weight. The 100L feels like plastic...but it's very well built. Very tight tolerances, no wobbling, great focus ring, etc. I can't imagine not using the right tool for the job because the exterior doesn't 'feel' right. Are you a photographer or a gear fondler? It's one thing if the build is poor, and won't withstand the rigors of hard use, but that's not the case here.

Will you also never purchase the 24L, 35L, 50L, 135L, 17-40L, 24-105L or any 70-200 f/4L because they're plastic too?

Jman13 wrote:
Milan Hutera wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
^^^ That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. So, if it feels plastic, even if it's actually TOUGHER, and more resilient, and less likely to break, or dent, plus it doesn't freeze your fingers in the winter, nor does it expand or contract, therefore not having thermal affects on the lens alignment, and it's on one of the best optic designs they've ever produced...but it feels plastic, so NO WAY.


Seriously?

Yeah, look, a lot of people here want things that are sometimes downright stupid. What's wrong about getting a hunk of metal for something that costs arm and a leg? And honestly, did your fingers ever froze on your camera or lens?


Will you also never purchase the 24L, 35L, 50L, 135L, 17-40L, 24-105L or any 70-200 f/4L because they're plastic too?

Well, there are leather gloves to consider then . I prefer to use the gear rather than talk about it and shoot outside and often in freezing temperatures. And no, I won't buy any of those lenses, because I'd have to win a lottery for that , 70-200 f2.8L is on my "to get" list though.

The future is cheaper and crappier products! Such is life.

EBH

EB-1 wrote:
The future is cheaper and crappier products! Such is life.

EBH

Well, not all products....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I have 4 L lenses, but only half of one (70-200 f/4L IS) is made of metal, the rest are all plastic

My 135L feels identical to the 70-200/2.8L IS in build

Yakim Peled wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The future is cheaper and crappier products! Such is life.

EBH

Well, not all products....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


To clarify, I specifically meant Canon lenses.

EBH

Yakim Peled wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The future is cheaper and crappier products! Such is life.

EBH

Well, not all products....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


To clarify, I specifically meant Canon lenses.

EBH

How about ceramic parts? That name doesn't have the stigma plastic does, but come on, knives and cylinder heads made of pottery - just doesn't feel right - what's next, camera bodies

EB-1 wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
The future is cheaper and crappier products! Such is life.

EBH

Well, not all products....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


To clarify, I specifically meant Canon lenses.

EBH

As if I needed this clarification.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

As someone with experience in the plastics industry, there are some huge advantages to using plastic over metal.

Industry has a sad history of exaggerating the quality, performance, and durability of their products. The diamond phonograph needle was permanent. Color enhancing filters had neutral color balance, the Canon 1D MarkIII had the most advanced autofocus.
Nobody here has mentioned that plastics decompose and deteriorate from UV, chemicals in the air, and leaching of components. We just do not know the long term problems. With high quality materials we may not be talking about turning to powder but loss of critical tolerances or changing color of lenses. But this too can happen with metal and glass.

You're right, we don't know how the plastic lens barrels will fare 100 years from now, but for as long as I'm alive, I'd rather carry a lens that weighs 50% less than be bothered about longevity after I'm dead. At the same time, don't you think the camera companies would have paid a lot of attention into materials degradation when designing their lenses? I'm sure they have, given the fact that these pro lenses are being used day in and day out by pros all over the world in extremely harsh conditions. If they suddenly started degrading, we'd have all heard about it by now.
Fotofinder wrote:
Nobody here has mentioned that plastics decompose and deteriorate from UV, chemicals in the air, and leaching of components. We just do not know the long term problems. With high quality materials we may not be talking about turning to powder but loss of critical tolerances or changing color of lenses. But this too can happen with metal and glass.

Long after I am turned to dust, the metal 85L will turn to the plastic 100L in my bag and say: "...darling, you haven't aged a bit!..."

vince wrote:
You're right, we don't know how the plastic lens barrels will fare 100 years from now, but for as long as I'm alive, I'd rather carry a lens that weighs 50% less than be bothered about longevity after I'm dead. At the same time, don't you think the camera companies would have paid a lot of attention into materials degradation when designing their lenses? I'm sure they have, given the fact that these pro lenses are being used day in and day out by pros all over the world in extremely harsh conditions. If they suddenly started degrading, we'd have all heard about it by now.

+1

It doesn't even really matter what the lens is made from so long as it performs within it's expectations. If your job (and it's gotta be a job at this point) puts your gear in such extreme conditions that your gear might come out looking like this...

^
"It's only a flesh wound!"

Fotofinder wrote:
Industry has a sad history of exaggerating the quality, performance, and durability of their products. The diamond phonograph needle was permanent. Color enhancing filters had neutral color balance, the Canon 1D MarkIII had the most advanced autofocus.

Actually, it's marketing that often has the sad history of exaggerating the quality, performance, durability, and expense of their products.