Reading mode: Light Dark

Build quality concerns over Canon RF L lenses - valid?

Go to last post
East Gothia said:
Plastics are not more stable thermally, at 100 C (212 F) most plastics get softer but metal alloys used are totally unaffected
Click to expand...
Well, at 2000 C most metals also are unstable. But neither of those temperatures matter because they are both well outside the operating temperature ranges of your camera and lens

Within the operating range, the type of plastics used here hold pretty well thermally, with almost no change to their properties. At least to the tolerances these things are built to

That is why material engineers start with "what is fit for purpose", not "whats the strongest material in the world"

Materials have a wide range of properties, and talking about them in a broad classification like plastic vs metal without considering the application is completely useless from an engineering perspective
East Gothia said:
Metal lenses are shielded and have better EMC properties unless all the plastics are also metal coated on the inside.
Click to expand...
That "unless" is all that matters. Do plastic lenses suffer from this issue? If not, they are well designed from this PoV. You don't have to solve every problem by living in a Faraday cage
East Gothia said:
What plastics are stronger than common aluminum alloys (same cross section)?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Is the material in use "fit for purpose". If not, what is the issue that we are seeing?

Many EF L lenses have been using plastic construction for a long time now, so where is our evidence?

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashishpandey.com
 
Last edited:
East Gothia said:
JoWinter said:
East Gothia said:
Plastics are not more stable thermally, at 100 C (212 F) most plastics get softer but metal alloys used are totally unaffected. Plastics that survive 100 C have bad mechanical properties instead (
Click to expand...
Just watch the temperature you dial in before you put your lens in the oven, and you will be fine with RF lenses as well.

:-P
Click to expand...
... or leave the the camera in the car with engine running and AC on.
Click to expand...
And hope that the metal casing is enough to save the non metal parts of the lens, unless yours use metal for lens elements too. And the gears and couplings many of which are intentionally made from some form of plastic. And the electronics. Don't let a barrel fool you from the lens as a whole
East Gothia said:
Plastics have no melting point, they just get softer the higher the temperature. 100 C is bad but 70 C is not safe. My EF metal lenses will serve me well while the rest of you do the actual testing. Good Luck!
Click to expand...
So where are the reports of these melting or softening lenses from the last few decades? I'm sure your EF metal lenses will serve you well, but so will my plastic EF L lenses

I'll wait for your actual testing on putting the metal lenses in an oven. I prefer to use my equipment in an operating environment it was designed for

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashishpandey.com
 
Last edited:
CameraCarl said:
You mean "cheap plastic" such as the materials airplanes are made of? Or boat hulls? Or rifle stocks and handgrips? Or F1 racecar chassis? Or helicopter rotor blades?.... etc. etc. I think you are unnecessarily worried. Plastic no longer means cheap and in some applications (see above) are indeed superior to metals.
Click to expand...
You are actually saying that carbon fibre (or glass fibre) composites are used in RF lenses. Please spend some extra time on explaining how the carbon/glass fibres in these applications you refer to get into the precision mold needed to make a part for a lens. You might want to investigatigate "plastics" and compare to "fiber reinforced composites" a bit more and then compare the differencies.

Please tell the rest of the world exactly what the names and the compositions are for the fantastic materials you think are used in "plastic" lenses. I have personal experience of manufacturing carbon fibre and glass fibre aircraft composite parts and is very eager to find out what you mean.
 
East Gothia said:
CameraCarl said:
You mean "cheap plastic" such as the materials airplanes are made of? Or boat hulls? Or rifle stocks and handgrips? Or F1 racecar chassis? Or helicopter rotor blades?.... etc. etc. I think you are unnecessarily worried. Plastic no longer means cheap and in some applications (see above) are indeed superior to metals.
Click to expand...
You are actually saying that carbon fibre (or glass fibre) composites are used in RF lenses.
Click to expand...
No, he is not saying that. He is simply doing what you did in your first post - talking about materials without context to what is actually used in these lenses and whether it matters for the actual use case. All he is implying is plastics can mean a lot of things including very very strong materials
East Gothia said:
Please tell the rest of the world exactly what the names and the compositions are for the fantastic materials you think are used in "plastic" lenses.
Click to expand...
He doesn't owe the world that. If you are so keen, why don't you tell the world exactly what material the 100-400 L and 100-500L are made of and how do they compare when used for the utility they are designed for. Enough of this "metal" and "plastic" already if what you are about is the actual composites in use. What makes you believe Canon doesn't have a durable enough product here?
East Gothia said:
I have personal experience of manufacturing carbon fibre and glass fibre aircraft composite parts and is very eager to find out what you mean.
Click to expand...
Then I would expect you to know better than engage in a generalized banter on metal vs plastic lenses. Is the difference because you manufactured them but had no inputs on material selection and design aspects?

--
PicPocket
http://photography.ashishpandey.com
 
Last edited:
PicPocket said:
East Gothia said:
Plastics are not more stable thermally, at 100 C (212 F) most plastics get softer but metal alloys used are totally unaffected
Click to expand...
Well, at 2000 C most metals also are unstable. But neither of those temperatures matter because they are both well outside the operating temperature ranges of your camera and lens

Within the operating range, the type of plastics used here hold pretty well thermally, with almost no change to their properties. At least to the tolerances these things are built to
Click to expand...
PicPocket said:
That is why material engineers start with "what is fit for purpose", not "whats the strongest material in the world"
Click to expand...
“purpose” here includes the production budget constraints and the intended market price range.

A cheap plastic lens may more easily break at the camera mount if too much force is applied. The maker can argue that it wasn’t intended for Professional use - which is reflected by the price.

So even though it is was weaker and broke more easily it can still be considered to be fit for purpose

PicPocket said:
Materials have a wide range of properties, and talking about them in a broad classification like plastic vs metal without considering the application is completely useless from an engineering perspective
PicPocket said:
Metal lenses are shielded and have better EMC properties unless all the plastics are also metal coated on the inside.
Click to expand...
That "unless" is all that matters. Do plastic lenses suffer from this issue? If not, they are well designed from this PoV. You don't have to solve every problem by living in a Faraday cage
PicPocket said:
What plastics are stronger than common aluminum alloys (same cross section)?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Is the material in use "fit for purpose". If not, what is the issue that we are seeing?

Many EF L lenses have been using plastic construction for a long time now, so where is our evidence?
Click to expand...
Peter
 
Messier Object said:
PicPocket said:
East Gothia said:
Plastics are not more stable thermally, at 100 C (212 F) most plastics get softer but metal alloys used are totally unaffected
Click to expand...
Well, at 2000 C most metals also are unstable. But neither of those temperatures matter because they are both well outside the operating temperature ranges of your camera and lens

Within the operating range, the type of plastics used here hold pretty well thermally, with almost no change to their properties. At least to the tolerances these things are built to

That is why material engineers start with "what is fit for purpose", not "whats the strongest material in the world"
Click to expand...
“purpose” here includes the production budget constraints and the intended market price range.

A cheap plastic lens may more easily break at the camera mount if too much force is applied. The maker can argue that it wasn’t intended for Professional use - which is reflected by the price.

So even though it is was weaker and broke more easily it can still be considered to be fit for purpose
Click to expand...
Can you be a bit specific, rather than being speculative? We are talking top of the line L lenses, sold to professionals who also have CPS. Arguing is not what this is about. We aren’t talking about cheap plastic lenses, we are talking about expensive top of the line line lenses with plastic barrels
 
PicPocket said:
East Gothia said:
CameraCarl said:
You mean "cheap plastic" such as the materials airplanes are made of? Or boat hulls? Or rifle stocks and handgrips? Or F1 racecar chassis? Or helicopter rotor blades?.... etc. etc. I think you are unnecessarily worried. Plastic no longer means cheap and in some applications (see above) are indeed superior to metals.
Click to expand...
You are actually saying that carbon fibre (or glass fibre) composites are used in RF lenses.
Click to expand...
No, he is not saying that. He is simply doing what you did in your first post - talking about materials without context to what is actually used in these lenses and whether it matters for the actual use case. All he is implying is plastics can mean a lot of things including very very strong materials
PicPocket said:
Please tell the rest of the world exactly what the names and the compositions are for the fantastic materials you think are used in "plastic" lenses.
Click to expand...
He doesn't owe the world that. If you are so keen, why don't you tell the world exactly what material the 100-400 L and 100-500L are made of and how do they compare when used for the utility they are designed for. Enough of this "metal" and "plastic" already if what you are about is the actual composites in use. What makes you believe Canon doesn't have a durable enough product here?
PicPocket said:
I have personal experience of manufacturing carbon fibre and glass fibre aircraft composite parts and is very eager to find out what you mean.
Click to expand...
Then I would expect you to know better than engage in a generalized banter on metal vs plastic lenses. Is the difference because you manufactured them but had no inputs on material selection and design aspects?
Click to expand...
Neither of you have not mentioned that materials other than plastic matter in the design of products which are commonly hybrids of metals, plastics, polymers and glasses. Yes, I am an engineer with material selection experience. Each material has pros and cons. Metals can have issues, they can get hot to hold, they can turn brittle, or react to chemicals so overall suitability depends on design factors of the complete article.
 
Man youll be fine
 
RDM5546 said:
Neither of you have not mentioned that materials other than plastic matter in the design of products which are commonly hybrids of metals, plastics, polymers and glasses. Yes, I am an engineer with material selection experience. Each material has pros and cons. Metals can have issues, they can get hot to hold, they can turn brittle, or react to chemicals so overall suitability depends on design factors of the complete article.
Click to expand...
+1

you are right that theoretically, there is no so called "safe" material to make us rest assure. However, when i purchase a canon white "L" lens, i can be rest assure that that lens is gonna be around for the rest of my life trouble free as far as the barrel is concerned, although there is nothing definitive about anything in this world. now, parts, optics and hardware inside is another matter.

i have never heard of a canon lens body failed because because of the composite material it was made of, and that goes to their camera bodies as well.


Unexamined world isn't worth living in. "Socrates"
 
BlueRay2 said:
RDM5546 said:
Neither of you have not mentioned that materials other than plastic matter in the design of products which are commonly hybrids of metals, plastics, polymers and glasses. Yes, I am an engineer with material selection experience. Each material has pros and cons. Metals can have issues, they can get hot to hold, they can turn brittle, or react to chemicals so overall suitability depends on design factors of the complete article.
Click to expand...
+1

you are right that theoretically, there is no so called "safe" material to make us rest assure. However, when i purchase a canon white "L" lens, i can be rest assure that that lens is gonna be around for the rest of my life trouble free as far as the barrel is concerned, although there is nothing definitive about anything in this world. now, parts, optics and hardware inside is another matter.

i have never heard of a canon lens body failed because because of the composite material it was made of, and that goes to their camera bodies as well.

Unexamined world isn't worth living in. "Socrates"
Click to expand...
+1
 
Cars built in the 1950’s are safer and more reliable than new cars because they were built entirely of metal and weigh a whole lot more.
 
JustUs7 said:
Cars built in the 1950’s are safer and more reliable than new cars because they were built entirely of metal and weigh a whole lot more.
Click to expand...
The Trabant came out in 1957...

Its kerb weight was 620 kg (1,367 lb)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KEG
JustUs7 said:
Cars built in the 1950’s are safer and more reliable than new cars because they were built entirely of metal and weigh a whole lot more.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't
 
I like the feel of my metal L lenses but that is an emotional attachment. Material science has progressed so much over the last few decades that objectively plastics may we'll be superior in nearly every way. We're now finding out.
 
JustUs7 said:
Cars built in the 1950’s are safer and more reliable than new cars because they were built entirely of metal and weigh a whole lot more
Click to expand...
What evidence is there for being safer? (Much data says this is not true) .

+1 to Camera Carl who this this is sarcastic
 
Last edited:
JustUs7 said:
KEG said:
JustUs7 said:
Cars built in the 1950’s are safer and more reliable than new cars because they were built entirely of metal and weigh a whole lot more.
Click to expand...
No, they aren't
Click to expand...
Apparently the dripping sarcasm wasn’t as obvious as I thought.
Click to expand...
On the internet no one can be entirely sure of anything, especially when lot of people actually believe what you wrote to be true
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • User review User review
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM — A Smart Tradeoff for Travel, Video, and Everyday Use
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
alphaZ
A
L
After so many years with CANON - time to look elsewhere...
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
Sittatunga
S
B
EF->RF Lens adapter with filter slot
Replies
3
Views
376
Belle04
B
R
Canon wildlife setup - 500mm i/ii, EF 100-400ii, RF 100-500
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
KevinRA
K
T
RF 85mm f/1.4 VCM.... will it ever happen?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
10K
R2D2
R2D2

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