Plastic Lenses Vs. Others

SJD

Senior Member
Perhaps this too is a basic question.

I have already posted many questions about lenses. And i have been reading a lot about lenses on Youtube etc. I always find reviewers talk a lot about the fact that some lenses are "plastic" and being cheap...

What the issue with plastic ? is it the durability ? or the fact that it can break ?

I always thought its the inside that matters most not the cover. Help me understand.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
Granted, paying hundreds of dollars for a lens made out of plastic does seem strange to most people. However, these lenses made with a plastic shell can still be fine lenses. Since a lens is judged solely by its optics, I wouldn't worry too much about metal vs. plastic. Metal lenses are great if you're considering photographing in a war zone or out in the wilderness but if you're like most people and you baby your lenses, then it won't really matter what the lens is made out of. Frankly, I've never heard of anyone who's lens failed due to the plastic. Typically it's the glass that breaks long before the plastic frame breaks and that applies to both metal and plastic lenses. And in some cases, having plastic that can absorb some of the shock instead of transferring it to the glass might be a good thing.

So I guess it all depends on what kind of photography you'll be shooting and how likely you'll be banging your lens around. Otherwise, I'd concentrate on the optics and not worry too much about the construction.
 

SJD

Senior Member
Hi Dave, Thanks. Makes a lot of sense now. I was thinking the same about shock handling and protecting glass. I guess if you are reckless you will break them anyway regardless whether its plastic or metal.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
What the issue with plastic? is it the durability? or the fact that it can break?
Plastic has always had an image problem, while steel has always been, well... MANLY!

*rips off shirt, thumps chest*

In all honesty, the only "problem" I have with plastic on my lens is a plastic lens MOUNT. I love that plastic gives me a lighter lens to tote around but even I cock an eyebrow at using a plastic bayonet. If Nikon came out and said, "Okay, a--hole, you want a steel bayonet? Fine... But it'll add $10 to the cost of every lens!" I'd still be all over it.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
What the issue with plastic ? is it the durability ? or the fact that it can break ?

I always thought its the inside that matters most not the cover. Help me understand.

There are pros and cons to plastic construction. Both metal and plastic can break, but plastic is likely less durable if you are to drop it or something falls on the camera. Plastic is also lighter, which makes for an easier lens to carry, so it has its definite advantages. It's also less costly to produce, so if the optics are good then you get more bang for your buck ... provided you don't damage it.

For me, where the rubber really meets the road on this issue is the mounting hardware. For me, that's the difference between a "cheap" lens and one that I'd consider carrying around. You're far more likely to have that break on you than anything else (just think about how many times it gets stuck into the camera and twisted and how many opportunities there are for that to be done too aggressively or misaligned). After that, I'm going to be more concerned with optics than the metal/plastic debate, though I will consider how and where the lens will be used. I'm glad my 150-500mm is metal as it hangs by my side as I climb through bushes and trees as it's had its fair share of knocks. I'm far less concerned about my primes and small zooms. That said, if I'm paying 4-figures for glass, I'm going to want the construction to be the last thing I worry about.
 

daredevil123

Senior Member
Actually, most probably do not know that there are quite a number of lenses out there with plastic resin elements... And sometimes these elements have more tendency to haze than glass ones.
 

Watch72

Senior Member
This is also my understanding when reference to "plastic" lens. It is more than just the plastic external casing or the mounting ring. There are lens element that are non-glass. If they are made out of plastic resin - I wonder whether long term exposure to UV have a damaging effect.
 

Michael J.

Senior Member
I did not waste eny thoughts of this and bought the lens I considered and wanted. After researching a bit I saw a lot of pro and contras about plastic vs. metal.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me.

It reminds me when I cam more than 18 years ago to Thailand. Everything was fine and there were no problems at all until today. But read the web-boards, the news how many things a dangerous, how many Thais are cheating, etc.

That reminds me, my new lens the Nikon 16-85 is made in Thailand. Many people think Oh gosh. But you know what, I don't care cos it's a fine great lens.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
You will be surprised Dave.

Most of the time only one or 2 of the elements are plastic resin and not all the elements.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that nearly all lenses have one or two plastic optical lenses in which the light passes through on the way to the sensor? If so, can you tell me which ones have this plastic optical element in them?
 

daredevil123

Senior Member
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that nearly all lenses have one or two plastic optical lenses in which the light passes through on the way to the sensor? If so, can you tell me which ones have this plastic optical element in them?

Only some lenses Dave. I am not at liberty to tell, but the prices will give you some indication. And it is not just Nikon.
 

STM

Senior Member
The greatest issue I have with plastic is that it is not as durable as metal. Period. And I am extremely disappointed to say the least, at Nikon for taking the cheap route and making the bayonet mount out of plastic on some lenses. That is something that the cheap lens manufacturers do, not someone with Nikon's reputation for quality and durability. I have used Nikkor lenses for well over 30 years and the one thing that has always separated the Nikkors from lenses made by Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Minolta has been, for a lack of a better term, the Nikon "feel". The others tried but never achieved it. Nikon lenses have always felt like a precision instrument. I used to show people how well they were made by taking my 300mm f/4.5 AIS Nikkor, turning the focusing ring to the minimum focusing distance, placing the lens on a table and watching the weight of the internals turn the focusing ring smoothly and evenly until it stopped at infinity with an audible click. THAT is precision. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but to me Nikon's plastic lenses feel like cheap garbage to me and I wouldn't give you a nickel for an entire truckload of them. Their metal lenses are still much better but the traditional Nikon feel, even in them, is gone.

Sorry Dave, but I have to respectfully disagree with you that a lens is judged solely on its optics. That is simply not true. What good is a optically excellent lens if it is prone to wear or failure because it is made of plastic? Back in the early 80's, Nikon in an attempt to save a little money, changed one of the gears in the MD-2 motor drive from brass to plastic. It was now brass on plastic with predictable results. The plastic gears stripped at the higher frame rates. Subsequently, they changed it back to brass. I can tell you without reservation that if I am still doing photography 20 years from now and Nikon has not screwed their customers over like Canon did when they changed their mount, that my all-metal Nikkors will still be up to the task. How many of the plastic lenses of today will still be in use 20 years from now, or how many of them will be buried in the back of closets, up in attics or buried in a landfill? To me the answer is obvious.

The introduction of automatic focusing lenses has been a Godsend for me, because now I can get manual focus Nikkors, made to the traditional Nikon standard of excellence, used for prices that are a fraction of what they were new because they are not nearly as popular as they used to be. Lenses I could once not afford or justify the cost are now very affordable, and reasonably prevalent. I have gotten several used Nikkors on Fleabay in outstanding condition and although I honestly have every focal length lens I could ever possibly need now, it is still nice to know that if I find a lens I really would like to have for a certain application, I can usually find it in great shape and for a very reasonable price.
 
Last edited:

Dave_W

The Dude
Only some lenses Dave. I am not at liberty to tell, but the prices will give you some indication. And it is not just Nikon.

I'm going to have to wave the bovine pie flag on this one. Nikkor lenses contain only glass elements. Other items are made out of plastic but the elements are still good ol' fashioned glass.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
The greatest issue I have with plastic is that it is not as durable as metal. Period. And I am extremely disappointed to say the least, at Nikon for taking the cheap route and making the bayonet mount out of plastic on some lenses. That is something that the cheap lens manufacturers do, not someone with Nikon's reputation for quality and durability. I have used Nikkor lenses for well over 30 years and the one thing that has always separated the Nikkors from lenses made by Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Minolta has been, for a lack of a better term, the Nikon "feel". The others tried but never achieved it. Nikon lenses have always felt like a precision instrument. I used to show people how well they were made by taking my 300mm f/4.5 AIS Nikkor, turning the focusing ring to the minimum focusing distance, placing the lens on a table and watching the weight of the internals turn the focusing ring smoothly and evenly until it stopped at infinity with an audible click. THAT is precision. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but to me Nikon's plastic lenses feel like cheap junk to me and I wouldn't give you a nickel for a truckload of them. Their metal lense are still much better but the traditional Nikon feel, even in them, is gone.

Sorry Dave, but I have to respectfully disagree with you that a lens is judged solely on its optics. That is simply not true. What good is a optically excellent lens if it is prone to wear or failure because it is made of plastic? Back in the early 80's, Nikon in an attempt to save a little money, changed one of the gears in the MD-2 motor drive from brass to plastic. It was now brass on plastic with predictable results. The plastic gears stripped at the higher frame rates. Subsequently, they changed it back to brass. I can tell you without reservation that if I am still doing photography 20 years from now and Nikon has not screwed their customers over like Canon did when they changed their mount, that my all-metal Nikkors will still be up to the task. How many of the plastic lenses of today will still be in use 20 years from now, or how many of them will be buried in the back of closets, up in attics or buried in a landfill? To me the answer is obvious.

The introduction of automatic focusing lenses has been a Godsend for me, because now I can get manual focus Nikkors, made to the traditional Nikon standard of excellence, used for prices that are a fraction of what they were new because they are not nearly as popular as they used to be. Lenses I could once not afford or justify the cost are now very affordable, and reasonably prevalent. I have gotten several used Nikkors on Fleabay in outstanding condition and although I honestly have every focal length lense I could ever possibly need now, it is still nice to know that if I find a lens I really would like to have for a certain application, I can usually find it in great shape and for a very reasonable price.

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.
 

STM

Senior Member
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.

Nonsense. I will stack any of my AIS Nikkors up against any of the Nikkors out today. Sub-optimal? I challenge you to name some, especially out of the list in my signature, which have a reputation for being "sub-optimal". And what are you using as a yardstick for "optimal"? All of the Nikkors I own have all had a long standing repution for optical excellence. If they hadn't I would have gotten rid of them. And the images they still produce stand on their own merit.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
Nonsense. I will stack any of my AIS Nikkors up against any of the Nikkors out today. Sub-optimal? I challenge you to name some, especially out of the list in my signature, which have a reputation for being "sub-optimal". And what are you using as a yardstick for "optimal"? All of the Nikkors I own have all had a long standing repution for optical excellence. If they hadn't I would have gotten rid of them. And the images they still produce stand on their own merit.

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.
 

daredevil123

Senior Member
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)

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/hikyu.html
Canon uses four different type of aspherical lens elements now depending on the purpose;
1. a ground and polished glass aspherical lens element.
2. a molded glass aspherical lens element.
3. a molded plastic aspherical lens element produced by a high-precision molding technology.
4. a replica aspherical lens element, ultraviolet-light-hardening resin layer on a spherical glass lens element.

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.
 
Last edited:
Top