Plastic Lenses Vs. Others

[daredevil123]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The way most people baby their lenses it doesn't matter whether it's plastic, metal or kryptonite, they're going to last a lifetime either way. Granted, some people are much harder on their lenses than others but by and large most of us treat our lenses with the utmost care and most will last longer than we will.
And while the newer Nikkor lenses are made of plastic, the fact is their optics blow away the lenses of the past. Lens design has come a long way in the past 8 yrs and I'd much rather have a sharper, finer lens made of plastic vs. a hefty metallic lens with sup-optimal optics.

Baby or not, some parts will still fail. like the infamous focusing motor in the 17-35/2.8. Great optics, but very unreliable. Many of my counterparts have had their focusing motors fail on them on the 17-35. And several of them experienced two or more failures within 3 years, even after replacement.

What about the stiff zoom ring/scratched inner barrel problem of the 24-70 and the 14-24? Many have complained, but how many people know the real cause? Canon 24-70 Mk I also suffers the same problem... the cause is very similar. A very famous equipment rental company once did an expose on the problem, but mysteriously that article has disappeared for a while now... (maybe they are not at liberty to say certain things too...)

What about the failure of VR of the first version of Nikon 18-200VR? This problem is well documented all over the internet. The problem is also very simple and documented by several repair specialists online.

Another infamous lens (though a little OT in this forum) is the Canon 50/1.4 USM. It's AF motor is also very prone to failure.

Though I will agree that most newer lenses are optically much better than older lenses, we also have to be aware that we are living in times with an economic landscape that is much more competitive than before. In the relentlessness march towards cost savings and lower prices, corners have to be cut and have been cut at the expense of robustness of parts and materials. On top of that, planned obsolescence also plays a part in product design nowadays.

I still hold on to my belief that newer doesn't necessarily means better. And that even when we baby our gears, it will not last a lifetime. The most important thing is to make full use your equipment and plan for backups if you are paid to shoot. So that your equipment gives you the maximum ROI in its lifetime.

 

[crycocyon]

Sure thing guys. You guys can choose to believe what you want to believe. It's your prerogative.

BS or not, only I know right? I have my reasons not to say more. And you can choose to continue to believe what you believe.

But a quick search online, will also get you the answers. But it is also up to you if you want to do it or not.

BTW, this is what Canon declares... You think Nikon does it differently? (you might even find the same declarations in Nikon website, if you know where to look)

Technical Room - Aspherical Lenses


Anyway, enough of my "BS". For those who wants to hear the truth other than what they want to hear, your answers is never further than a google away.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. I work professionally with representatives of Nikon and Zeiss on a regular basis and that just isn't the case. So I don't need Google. And your link just gives examples of ways of making aspherical elements, not a specific reference to a specific lens. Maybe you've read about bootleg lenses from China that use plastic elements, but it would be pretty obvious optically if there was such an element. It would certainly bear itself out in optical tests of resolution, coma, flare, etc. and so it would have been reported a long time ago. There is a reason glass is used, and the glass itself is cheap as a resource. Sure, they have their special glass formulas, but I would like you to show us a single lens from any manufacturer that states they use such an element. Since you brought it up, the burden of proof is on you, not us. Otherwise your claim has no grounding in reality. In fact, making a lens as reasonably good optically made of plastic would cost more than just doing it with a glass element . Ever hear about something called an "optical formula"? One cannot include elements of different materials because that would throw refractive index calculations way off and make compensation for the non-glass element even more complicated than just putting a glass element there in the first place.

And sorry to say, but to say that "I have my reasons" is just trolling.

 

[AC016]

I have looked on the interweb concerning this subject once before. I did not find any hard evidence that said any one particular lens contained plastic elements. When i say "lens", i mean an interchangeable lens. It is well known that aspherical plastic lenses are used in inexpensive conusmer cameras (P&S), mobile phones, etc. Hey, not to many people i know have actual glass lenses for their glasses - safety reasons. Therefore, if Canon states that they use plastic lenses for their optics, i would imagine they are talking about their consumer P&S cameras or even maybe their cheapo DSLR lenses - if they put them in their L lenses, i think people would have a heart attack, lol. I really think that you would have to be somewhat of an expert to really debate in technical lingo, about the presence of plastic elements in lenses and whether or not they are compatible optically with glass elements, etc etc. None of us hear are optical experts with any sort of degrees in the field - if any of you are, pls raise your hand... Just ask yourself this: does your lens perform as advertised? If so, who the hell cares what the elements are made of. I highly doubt that anyone here could tell the difference anyhow.

 

[daredevil123]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. I work professionally with representatives of Nikon and Zeiss on a regular basis and that just isn't the case. So I don't need Google. And your link just gives examples of ways of making aspherical elements, not a specific reference to a specific lens. Maybe you've read about bootleg lenses from China that use plastic elements, but it would be pretty obvious optically if there was such an element. It would certainly bear itself out in optical tests of resolution, coma, flare, etc. and so it would have been reported a long time ago. There is a reason glass is used, and the glass itself is cheap as a resource. Sure, they have their special glass formulas, but I would like you to show us a single lens from any manufacturer that states they use such an element. Since you brought it up, the burden of proof is on you, not us. Otherwise your claim has no grounding in reality. In fact, making a lens as reasonably good optically made of plastic would cost more than just doing it with a glass element . Ever hear about something called an "optical formula"? One cannot include elements of different materials because that would throw refractive index calculations way off and make compensation for the non-glass element even more complicated than just putting a glass element there in the first place.

And sorry to say, but to say that "I have my reasons" is just trolling.

I have actually seen such elements. where the plastic resin parts are combined with glass parts. Signing an NDA is a very strong reason... won't you say?

Canon has specifically said they are using such elements, not ways out there where they can be made... You can find similar claims in Nikon's websites. Just that I cannot list them out here in the open. Please do a search... it is there, search Aspherical

 

[daredevil123]

I have looked on the interweb concerning this subject once before. I did not find any hard evidence that said any one particular lens contained plastic elements. When i say "lens", i mean an interchangeable lens. It is well known that aspherical plastic lenses are used in inexpensive conusmer cameras (P&S), mobile phones, etc. Hey, not to many people i know have actual glass lenses for their glasses - i never had for safety reasons. Therefore, if Canon states that they use plastic lenses for their optics, i would imagine they are talking about their consumer P&S cameras or even maybe their cheapo DSLR lenses - if they put them in their L lenses, i think people would have a heart attack, lol. I really think that you would have to be somewhat of an expert to really debate in technical lingo, about the presence of plastic elements in lenses and whether or not they are compatible optically with glass elements, etc etc. None of us hear are optical experts with any sort of degrees in the field - if any of you are, pls raise your hand... Just ask yourself this: does your lens perform as advertised? If so, who the hell cares what the elements are made of. I highly doubt that anyone here could tell the difference anyhow.

Maybe you want to look at an old discontinued Nikon lens 28-70/2.8 as an example... maybe also take a look at the lens design diagram of the 17-35/2.8 too.

I am not saying plastic is inferior or gives bad IQ... Just saying that the assumption that all elements in all Nikon lenses are purely glass, apparently held dearly by so many in this forum, is incorrect.

Anyway, I have said enough. And will no longer respond. Carrying on this discussion is not constructive, as it seems so many are so quick to throw labels and names. If anyone of you think I am BS or trolling, go ahead. I don't really care. Have a good day.

 

[AC016]

Maybe you want to look at an old discontinued Nikon lens 28-70/2.8 as an example... maybe also take a look at the lens design diagram of the 17-35/2.8 too.

lol, well, no need to. It would be nice to spend a thousand bucks on a lens and then dismantle it. But, i don't have that kind of money to throw out the window. I am not arguing with you, by no means. I have had "glass" glasses and "plastic lens" glasses in my lifetime. Trust me when i say that optically, there was no difference that i could see. As i said, i don't care. If it performs as advertised and i get good clean, sharp images, why should i care? Keep on clicking

 

[TedG954]

Sure thing guys. You guys can choose to believe what you want to believe. It's your prerogative.

BS or not, only I know right? I have my reasons not to say more. And you can choose to continue to believe what you believe.

Well, gee. Thanks. It's nice to be allowed to believe what I choose.

I know who really killed JFK, and I can prove we never landed on the moon. I'd really love to show you my proof, but I signed an agreement with the government that doesn't allow me to share that information. Yep, I know where there's a live Sasquatch, but I can't tell you where. I know a lot of stuff. We should have coffee sometime.

 

[Dave_W]

Oliver Stone....? Is that you?

 

[AC016]

Oliver Stone....? Is that you?

View attachment 35066

 

[crycocyon]

I have actually seen such elements. where the plastic resin parts are combined with glass parts. Signing an NDA is a very strong reason... won't you say?

Canon has specifically said they are using such elements, not ways out there where they can be made... You can find similar claims in Nikon's websites. Just that I cannot list them out here in the open. Please do a search... it is there, search Aspherical

An NDA that you claimed you signed still doesn't mean anything. An NDA is related to intellectual property protection, and any lens out there now in production has already had the patents pending or granted so an NDA wouldn't be necessary. So even mention of an NDA makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

Canon did not specifically say they use those elements. That page, again, refers to types of elements one could use to correct for abberations.

 

[crycocyon]

Maybe you want to look at an old discontinued Nikon lens 28-70/2.8 as an example... maybe also take a look at the lens design diagram of the 17-35/2.8 too.

I am not saying plastic is inferior or gives bad IQ... Just saying that the assumption that all elements in all Nikon lenses are purely glass, apparently held dearly by so many in this forum, is incorrect.

Anyway, I have said enough. And will no longer respond. Carrying on this discussion is not constructive, as it seems so many are so quick to throw labels and names. If anyone of you think I am BS or trolling, go ahead. I don't really care. Have a good day.

Well we'll see as it isn't too hard for me to check with Nikon. I'm assuming you mean the 17-35 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 D lenses?

 

[jwstl]

Nikon makes no secret of the fact that they use hybrid elements (glass and plastic) in some of their lenses; it's discussed on the website.

Nikon | Technology | Aspherical Lenses

 

[AC016]

Nikon makes no secret of the fact that they use hybrid elements (glass and plastic) in some of their lenses; it's discussed on the website.

Nikon | Technology | Aspherical Lenses

Thanks for sharing.

 

[TedG954]

Oliver Stone....? Is that you?

I'd really like to tell you, but........... I just can't.

View attachment 35072

 

[STM]

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. DxOMark has done an excellent job documenting the optics of these newer lenses but in the end it's a subjective call and we each have to make that call for ourselves.

You do realize that the optical formulas of many of those "sub-optimal" AIS Nikkors were carried forward into the newer "optimum" Nikkors, righti? So tell me again how they blow them away.

 

[§am]

I did a quickish search on the internet and came up with a few references to the use of plastic elements in lens construction (one of the links already posted above is direct from Nikon's website).

To my mind though, what Nikon lenses aren't are full plastic lens elements - i.e. you won't get a Nikon lens where all the optical parts are plastic/resin elements.
Yes you'll get the hybrids where there are plastic/resin elements to the lens construction (e.g. a resin coating, or a resin gel to combine two elements together etc), but from the quick research I've done, the vasy majority of Nikon lenses are predominantly composed of glass elements


Daredevil123 - you may have signed NDA's etc, but if the information is out there and accessible via internet searches etc, then there is no reason why you can't link to them.
Yes, if your NDA specifies you cannot link direct to this webpage, then so be it, otherwise, please do enlighten us a little more.

Like I said, a few mins of research has already thrown up links and articles supporting the fact

 

[Dave_W]

Just to be sure, you all realize this "hybrid" lenses are only used in the point-and-shoot cameras, right? There are no exchangeable lenses that contain a hybrid lens.

 

[Dave_W]

You do realize that the optical formulas of many of those "sub-optimal" AIS Nikkors were carried forward into the newer "optimum" Nikkors, righti? So tell me again how they blow them away.

We can go by the numbers. Take for instance the ten top rated Nikkor lenses. 9 out of 10 of them are new G lenses. Expanding that number to 20 we see 17 of them are the newer G lenses.

DxOMark - Camera Lens Ratings


If we now look at their optical ratings we see that 10 out of 10 of best optical lenses are the newer G lenses.

DxOMark - Optical Metric Scores


So from a purely objective point of view, newer Nikon lenses have significantly better optics than their earlier series of lenses. From a subjective point of view, you may find these older lenses far better than the newer lenses and no one can argue with you. That's the beauty of photography. Beauty is in the eye of the photographer... or something like that.

 

[jwstl]

Just to be sure, you all realize this "hybrid" lenses are only used in the point-and-shoot cameras, right? There are no exchangeable lenses that contain a hybrid lens.

Wrong. There are a number of "exchangeable" lenses, including some fine glass, that use or used the hybrid elements. It's mentioned by Nikon in their product descriptions as shown below. Just search for the word "hybrid". They aren't 100% hybrid elements but they are used.

Nikon | News | AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED
Nikon | Imaging Products | AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED
Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED (2.1x)
Nikon | News | AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED


And there are more than this. But just because they use the hybrids doesn't make them bad lenses.

 

[Dave_W]

Interesting, thanks, I didn't realize that. I had come across a reference that said these were all point and shoot but clearly that's wrong. This is what's great about Nikonites, no matter how much you *think* you know, you can always learn something new