Quality of Build

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
leonski Forum Member • Posts: 84
Quality of Build

I'm only thinking lenses here.     I see many reviewers and users alike say that Lens 'X' is pro quality.   That might be the common 70-200 f2.8        Than when the f4 lens is reviewed most seem to think it is of 'lesser' quality.

I wonder why?

Have any of these reviewers taken the lens apart and LOOKED at the 'guts'?   I'll concede that some choices of materials are more durable, but todays engineering plastics are somewhere between incredible and amazing.    And both versions of the lens I refer to are 'sealed' for weather tolerance.   Self-lubricity of some plastics means NO greases or oils to migrate around, age or 'decompose'.

Do manufacturers admit to a different level of build quality or simply 'hint' when doing adverts and blurbs?

I'm puzzled.   Will the 2.8 REALLY last a lot longer?    Or be simply more durable in adverse conditions?    Has anyone ever done a double test with one lens the 'pro' 2.8 and the other an f4 of the same focal length range?

I'll admit to never having a lens fail.   I've come close.    I simply nearly Wore Out an ancient Vivitar 135 f2.8 in the old Canon FD mount.    Very mechanical and no electronics.   But i used that lens almost daily and it was better than 50:50 of it being on my camera at any given time.   While probably not build to even contemporary Nikon or Canon or Pentax standards, the darn thing lasted a LONG time.   And it was a HockShop find!

Does anyone have any input into the quality of modern manufacture?   Other than anecdotal, anyway.

 leonski's gear list:leonski's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow