Reading mode: Light Dark

So you think that the Oly 12-40 is built of metal?

Go to last post
R

Rick_Hunter

Senior Member
Messages
1,021
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,185
Location
Somewhere near Venice, IT
Well... It's not, look at this cutaway:



020.jpg


It's all plastic, except for the lens mount and the "bodywork". It actually is a plastic lens wrapped in a thin external layer of metal, so that it looks like metal from the outside.

I would also like to point out that the screws holding the lens mount to the lens are screwed onto plastic and the zoom helicoids are plastic too.

Oh well, I'll be getting one anyway, there is no doubt it's an optically superb lens, but I'm a bit sad that at this pricepoint (and with a PRO monicker printed on the lens barrel itself) we are getting a dressed-up plastic lens instead of a (real) metal one like the 75mm 1.8 (check lensrental's dismantling of the 75 and you will see it is much better built)
 
To be fair, the price point is not that expensive. I'm used to paying considerably more for my Canon pro equipment and I believe the Nikon stuff is a tad bit more expensive than that.

I remember when the 12-40 was announced thinking that $999.99 was pretty cheap and then when I got it for $799.99 after the rebate I was further amazed.
 
Hopefully the plastic they utilize provides the durability of metal at a lower weight. Now if only they can find a plastic equivalent to ED glass that provides equal IQ! Other than for the objective lens, I'd be all for that in exchange for lower weight for big "glass".
 
When I dropped my 12-35mm Panasonic zoom on a tiled floor from a height of 4 feet I assumed that was the end of it. It fell on the lens hood and drove the hood back over the lens. The lens then bounced a foot in the air and landed on its side, spun around and slid under my computer desk, hitting the wall.

I fished it out, thinking to myself, "oh bother" ;-) I prised and manoeuvred the hood off (difficult) and looked the lens over. No visible signs of damage apart from a series of short scratches on the body end of the barrel.

I put the hood on (refitted perfectly) and fitted the lens to my camera and shot some pictures. Everything worked exactly as before, manual focus, zoom, auto focus. I checked everything out at high mag....all as before.

I have used the best quality equipment in the world all my working life and I can guarantee that no metal Nikon, Leica or Hasselblad lens would have survived that drop in working condition. I know, because I've been there and done it.

If anyone wishes the 12-40 was made of metal, I would quote the Chinese proverb. Be very careful what you wish for - it might come true.
 
[No message]
 
Doesn't worry me in the least and can't wait for my 12-40 to be delivered. The $25 per year, no fault, all risk insurance up to $2,500 will replace it even if Oly won't. That is why I buy the insurance as part of my homeowners every year, so I don't have to worry as I am hard on gear.
 
You are obviously not a materials scientist. Those three words in quotes mean many different things, none of which seems to be clear to people who don't understand the science of materials, or how it has progressed in the last 50 years.

Just one example -- no "metal" tennis racket would survive the abuse that pro tennis players give to their "plastic" ones.
 
Chris Noble said:
You are obviously not a materials scientist. Those three words in quotes mean many different things, none of which seems to be clear to people who don't understand the science of materials, or how it has progressed in the last 50 years.

Just one example -- no "metal" tennis racket would survive the abuse that pro tennis players give to their "plastic" ones.
Click to expand...
apparently you forgot that all plastics and all metals are different and plastic used for screw mounts in lenses is nowhere near what you try us to think ;-)
 
Gee, I don't know about the rest of you, but I found it fascinating to see a cross section of the camera and lens. Man, look at all the stuff they managed to get in there. Amazing.

As for the "all metallic construction". Personally, I had no illusions that it was "ALL" metal. There's bound to be glass, or optical grade plastic, and wires with plastic insulation, and all kinds of other stuff.

Any endeavor like this is always a compromise between cost, weight, size, and physics.

Only time and experience will tell us how well it all holds up, but I'm betting that Olympus put a lot of thought into their new flagship body and lenses and the materials used to construct them, and did their best to find the correct compromise in each area.
 
Yes, based on this photo I think that this is a metal.
 
Hi

Just on the subject of dropping lenses, I dropped my Pana 20mm from chest height onto a tiled floor (was changing lens in a shop) and after some rings that sprung off at the front of the lens were clipped back in it worked perfectly. I thought it must be a gonner. It is still my favourite lens.

I also clonked my GM1 yesterday when I bent down and the strap slid off my shoulder allowing the camera to hit another tiled floor. Only from a few inches this time. Chipped some paint but otherwise OK thankfully.

I think modern plastics are good news. Point taken about the lens mount being screwed into plastic though. Maybe it is so that it will in fact snap away rather than deforming the camera lens mount in an impact?
 
berni29 said:
Hi

Just on the subject of dropping lenses, I dropped my Pana 20mm from chest height onto a tiled floor (was changing lens in a shop) and after some rings that sprung off at the front of the lens were clipped back in it worked perfectly. I thought it must be a gonner. It is still my favourite lens.

I also clonked my GM1 yesterday when I bent down and the strap slid off my shoulder allowing the camera to hit another tiled floor. Only from a few inches this time. Chipped some paint but otherwise OK thankfully.

I think modern plastics are good news. Point taken about the lens mount being screwed into plastic though. Maybe it is so that it will in fact snap away rather than deforming the camera lens mount in an impact?
Click to expand...
 
There was a discussion like this a week or so ago regarding a broken 12-40 with the 'plastic mounts'. Then people posted a Nikon pro lens with similar damage showing the same type of construction.

This appears to be completely normal these days.

What makes it 'pro' is it's weather sealing and overall build quality.
 
Is this mockup your only evidence that the lens is plastic? While in Yodobashi (west Shinjuku) a couple of weeks ago, I picked up an e-m1 with 12-40 lens mounted and thought it was remarkably light. I asked the sales person about it and she said, no, the real lens is quite a bit heavier; the one in my hands was a mockup. That makes me wonder whether the cutaway mockup you saw was made in the same way? . . . ?
 
Sorry, no excuse for this. These lenses are VERY expensive and should have a corresponding build quality. I keep getting lens promotion e-mails from Olympus and it astonishes me what it is asking for micro 4/3rds lenses.
 
exdeejjjaaaa said:
Chris Noble said:
You are obviously not a materials scientist. Those three words in quotes mean many different things, none of which seems to be clear to people who don't understand the science of materials, or how it has progressed in the last 50 years.

Just one example -- no "metal" tennis racket would survive the abuse that pro tennis players give to their "plastic" ones.
Click to expand...
apparently you forgot that all plastics and all metals are different
Click to expand...
Exactly my point, ex-DJ.
 
We all prefer the touch of metal lenses because the weight and firmness gives a feel of quality, but in reality high grade plastics are more suited to surviving impact damage.
 
The Oly is F5.6 equivalent to a Canon FF. A Canon or Nikon F5.6 is basically a kit lens, that you can buy for $150. Oh, those kit lenses are also made of plastic, and for $150 people still complain.

When are people going to get that M43rds is ripping people off on lens prices? Maybe 6 times what they should cost.
Eric Lawson said:
To be fair, the price point is not that expensive. I'm used to paying considerably more for my Canon pro equipment and I believe the Nikon stuff is a tad bit more expensive than that.

I remember when the 12-40 was announced thinking that $999.99 was pretty cheap and then when I got it for $799.99 after the rebate I was further amazed.

--
GIGO
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top