johnctharp wrote:
STM lenses shouldn't feel 'crappy', as the focus rings aren't actually clutched to the focus cams. They're all 'fly by wire', as it were, somewhat like the 85Ls.
To me, the 18-55/55-250 lenses just feel cheap. I'd expect this 10-18 to be about the same since I'm pretty sure it's intended to round out the wide end of that combo. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it.
"Fly by wire" is even worse... so the lens won't even FOCUS unless it has power (that's what fly-by-wire means... ring turns sensor -> motor turns lens focusing mechanism).
As for the 35mm f/1.4L having a plastic mount... the mount itself is metal:
The lens barrel that it mounts to is probably plastic, but I'm not concerned too much about that. I'm concerned about points of contact being plastic. Metal (camera mount) on plastic (lens mount) will wear the plastic down and cause tolerance issues. Same will happen with metal-on-metal, but to a much lesser degree.
I read it. He's using a different definition of "lens mount" than pretty much everyone I've ever talked to.
It is true that TONS of lenses have plastic where the bayonet (to use his terms) mounts to the lens. I have no issue with that type of construction unless the lens is very heavy.
What I have issue with is lenses with plastic bayonets (to use his terms) where you have plastic (lens bayonet) sliding over metal (camera body lens mount) repeatedly as you mount and remove the lens. Plastic sliding over metal WILL exhibit more wear than metal-on-metal contact in that context.
The reason (other than cost) plastic bayonets are used on lower-end kit lenses is because those users don't tend to switch lenses very often (if at all)... so the wear I'm talking about becomes far less of an issue.
Plastic bayonets are pretty rare and are usually only present on the cheapest of the cheap lenses. Doesn't mean the 10-18 won't be a good performer, but it does mean it's probably cheaply constructed.
