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.
G. Thomas wrote:
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...
The scientific "explanation" behind CANON's purely marketing decision to make white lenses -the fluoride argument being irrelevant and all
Everybody gets worked up when they find out something is made of plastic. Almost all of the current L's are made of plastic. I bet you didn't know a lot of things like guns and engine parts for cars are even made of plastic currently. Plastic is just like anything, there are a lot of different plastics just like there are a lot of different metals. The plastics used are very durable and strong just as if they were made of metal but lighter. I'm not saying a quality metal build is bad, all I'm saying is that quality can come in different forms.
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
I don't want to put fire into the old discussion plastic vs. metal body. Personally - just for a matter of taste - I prefer metal bodies, but I also got used to the more and more commonly used engineered plastic barrels. So farI had no problems with the plastic bodies.
Still, I like the feeling of a pure metal lens body - third party MF lens producers still sell those for reasonable prices. A good example is my Peleng fisheye lens.
And yes, if Canon would suddenly use metal-only lens bodies for their L lenses, this might give them another reason to increase prices ....no, thanks!
These days plastics are chosen over metal in a lot of areas. Metal ( steel and Al ) have a lot of advantages but with the advances in plastics in the last 10 years or so, I would expect to see a lot more plastic in the future.
Basically, plastic is 'tougher' in a lot of circumstances than metal and in fact a better choice. In the auto industry plastics have made huge in-roads in components historically metal ( cylinder heads, oil pans ... )
For a lot of uses ( lenses being one ) I can see where plastics may be superior to metal. For lens bodies that tend to get bounced/banged/hit I suspect I would prefer the toughness over Al that would bend / dent in similar cases. My only concern would be with the ability to machine and hold tolerances of plastic over Al.
Years ago, materials science had already advanced to a point where engineers could design a part to withstand the rigors of outer space.
In fact, a part devised of various materials can achieve tolerances to the thousandths of an inch during a precision molding process -- no expensive machining involved in its production.
The production concerns go to the correct temperature and pressure during molding, and to the compounding of the materials with exactitude, to a gram.
These manmade materials do not rust, and so do not need painting or plating.
I find it slightly puzzling that on the 35L Canon decided to keep the hood bayonet/filter thread metal while on the 135L with same diameter it's plastic. Personally I'd like a mix of the two, metal filter threads to minimize the chances of cross threading and a plastic bayonet to reduce wear on the hood.
willlam wrote:
Personally I'd like a mix of the two, metal filter threads to minimize the chances of cross threading...
You are assuming that the 'plastic' is softer than the metal. Some 'plastics' are less plastic and harder than some metals. That is probably why engineering firms refer to them as polycarbonates. It is a shame that the word plastic has had its meaning perverted by an incorrect vernacular use. Plastic means inclined to deform permanently by applied force. The converse is elastic, which means inclined to return to original shape after application of deforming force. Most of the 'plastics' we depend on in our day to day lives are chosen more for their elasticity than their plasticity (at normal environmental termperatures).
These terms should not be confused with hardness, which is the ability to resist deformation by applied force, and brittleness which is the likelihood of shearing or shattering under applied force. Different solids and composite materials can have varying coefficients of hardness, brittleness, elasticity and plasticity in each of the four different dimensions as well as with temperature and the senses (e.g. tension, compression, shear).
The hood of my 200 f1.8 is made from a very plastic metal, and sometimes I have to hammer it back into a usable shape. A better design would have used polycarbonate or carbon fibre for the sake of their greater elasticity.
eddiejclayton: Yeah, ditto, doing photography means you have to man up to lugging your gear.
brainiac: Your comment speaks the language of material science. For a few years, I worked on the practical end of it, doing production and testing. People in the business do not use terms like "plastic" or "rubber," but instead "material," to refer to the products of material science. Of course, a given material may exhibit plastic or rubber-like qualities.
These manmade products differ from the products of nature by their having their properties designed and engineered for a specific use in a given environment to withstand the use of these products as anticipated.
Certainly, to improve their products, camera-makers and lens-makers will take advantage of the technology resulting from materials science.
Nitpick: I'd classify the hood for your lens as malleable, as in reshapeable.
The exterior of 24-70L also feels like plastic (and it's supposed to be magnesium alloy) so if 100L macro is significantly worse than 24-70L then NO WAY. No plastic! I don't care if it's as strong as MA, I want the FEEL of a tank for the ridiculously high prices we pay here in Europe. Period.
^^^ 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.
....no, thanks!
