EF-M Lenses: Not as durable as I thought...

Sittatunga wrote:

Ben Herrmann wrote:

Canon's initial EF-M offerings - the 18-55, the 22 MM, and the 11-22 MM were all built like little tanks - and love those metal lens mounts. Optically they also do a very good job and the 22 and the 11-22 are optical marvels for the price.

Section of the 18-55mm lens on the EOS M

Most of the metal in this lens is in the vanity shell and the bayonet. Just like a MacBook Pro. It doesn't mean it's a badly constructed lens, just that the later lenses are more honestly made. Lenses in this price range aren't designed to be repaired, it's too costly, just like the original Timex clockwork watches. If it breaks in the guarantee period it's cheaper to replace than to mend.

But something ridiculous happened on the way to the forums (pun intended) - Canon elected to get cheap. Everything produced after those 3 gorgeous lenses turned into all plastic designs with the exception of some 3rd party lenses that feature superb construction with metal mounts. And the bantering back and forth between the "metal lens mount" fans and those who are "purveyors of the plastic lens mount," is ongoing. IMO, there's some truth and logic to customers wanting better constructed optics.

This is but one facet of the EF-M lens line in general that prevents me from purchasing more M serious bodies - that is, both the quality and the pitiful number of EF-M lenses available. Think about it - Canon has released 8 M bodies since the M was first released - only to have a current selection of 7 Canon EF-M lenses (6 really since the 18-55 is no longer being produced).

Now lest any of the EOS M fanboys infer that I'm knocking the system - I'm not - not by a long shot! I enjoy shooting with the system, but many of us aren't satisfied with the current EF-M selection of optics.

"...just that the later lenses are more honestly made" - what do you mean by this?