Build quality concerns over Canon RF L lenses - valid?

PicPocket said:

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.

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

PicPocket 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

Click to expand...

I agree, these RF L lenses have been out long enough that if there was an issue we would see melted RF L lenses. What I love in the posts is the usage of the words "Plastic" and "Metal". These terms are so generic that the usage here on quality is laughable. Wide range in the types and quality of both types of materials.

There is no one better qualified to talk about lens construction and ruggedness than Roger Cicala, and to quote him on the (plastic) RF 70-200/2.8;

"This is going to hold up better than a metal lens"

He has nothing but praise for the construction of RF lenses, and that's enough for me.

JustUs7 said:

I feel like the same judgment the OP is making here about L lenses is also being made when people compare the R7 to the 7DII. It’s not a big heavy chunk of metal so therefore it’s not as durable or professional.

Click to expand...

So far my R7 is better photographically by every measure relative to my 7DMII. But, in the absence of official or objective measures of durability, when the weather is bad or I'm going to a hostile environment, I'll be taking the latter.

Canon in their effort to make more money, did us a favor. The EF to RF adapters will allow use of better built and as good as or better IQ EF lenses which are a plenty. So many EF mount bodies were made, many low and high quality lenses were produced to meet everyone's desires. This means when one doesn't have 2 to 3 K of green paper line Canon's pockets, an excellent EF alternative (w/adapter) can be had for A LOT LESS !

Well the EF 16-35 f2.8 L MKIII and EF 24-70 f2.8 L MKII both have plastic bodies!

Optically there is very little difference between these and RF version, with possibly the EF 16-35 being marginally better than the RF version.

You do get lens IS on top of the cameras IBIS with the RF versions.

As I had these EF versions I stuck with them.

I have the RF 100-500 and it seems to be built to the same standard as the EF 100-400 MKII I had.

yerach said:

pknittel said:

I am considering adding a Canon R5 C to my current setup (A7S III), and one thing that concerns me a little is the value proposition and build quality of the RF lens ecosystem.

With the RF lens lineup, it seems everything is both more expensive, with unnoticeable IQ improvements over the EF lens, and with worse build quality on the L lineup: all plastic, no metal; as compared to the EF L series which feature sturdy metal construction. Most of the RF lens seem to also rely heavily on camera correction, with significant barrel distortion which reduces IQ on corners.

Compared to the Sony E-mount, I can get quality zooms from Sigma, with incredible image quality and a solid, metal construction.

Should I be concerned about the plasticy build quality of the RF lens system? I simply don't think a multi-thousand dollar lens should be made of plastic. While I take care of my equipment, with years of use, drops and accidents happen.

Click to expand...

my RF L lenses are rock solid! but light, so...

if you like heavy-weight (literally) lenses, stick with EF and Sigma glass, and find a good chiropractic...

Click to expand...

I agree. I have 14 L lenses and 8 RF lenses and one RF-S lens. I have five Sigma lenses too. The RF lenses are smaller and lighter. They focus faster and in some cases better than the EF lenses. The EF lenses are very good in all respects including IQ but the RF lenses are all top notch. My Sigma Art lenses were inexpensive/affordable but big and heavy. The EF and Sigma lenses seem more rugged but that may be just because the are heavier. I have no doubt of the ruggedness of the RF lenses but that take time in the field to confirm. The RF lenses have more plastic coverings but it appears to be a very rugged plastic which is very comfortable as the metal lenses tend to be uncomfortable to hold outdoors in the extremes of heat or cold.

I did not not need buy any RF lenses and could have avoided spending some big money. My EF lenses would do a good job, though are bigger, heavier and take up more room in the bag. When action shooting dealing with the necessary EF to RF lens adapters when using the EF lenses is annoying.

This discussion does make me think about my broken Panasonic Leica 12-60mm. It litterly broke in two from a light fall at the lens mount. On the outside it looks like an all metal lens that is indestructable, yet the metal lens mount was screwed into plastic inside the housing with 3 screws that ofcouse broke the plastic.

I'd have to disagree with the no difference in IQ. RF lenses have 4 additional pins for faster transmission speeds. I prefer lighter as I age and I don't treat my gear like I did my dads car when I was 16.




My RF 24-15 F4 blows the doors off my old EF 24-105 F4. I couldn't stand the EF on a FF body.

BlueRay2 said:

BlueRay2 said:

BlueRay2 said:

en.

Click to expand...

my RF L lenses are rock solid! but light, so...

if you like heavy-weight (literally) lenses, stick with EF and Sigma glass, and find a good chiropractic...

Click to expand...

only a noodle arm would say that

Click to expand...

When you're in your late 60s and have back issues, you'll remember that clever line.

noggin2k1 said:

There is no one better qualified to talk about lens construction and ruggedness than Roger Cicala, and to quote him on the (plastic) RF 70-200/2.8;

"This is going to hold up better than a metal lens"

He has nothing but praise for the construction of RF lenses, and that's enough for me.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

Click to expand...

Canon first began using plastic composites in L lenses back in the 70s...they have a lot of experience with them. Modern Photography magazine did the same kind of disassembly reports as Cicala, and came to the same kinds of favorable conclusions back then.

RDKirk said:

noggin2k1 said:

There is no one better qualified to talk about lens construction and ruggedness than Roger Cicala, and to quote him on the (plastic) RF 70-200/2.8;

"This is going to hold up better than a metal lens"

He has nothing but praise for the construction of RF lenses, and that's enough for me.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

Click to expand...

Canon first began using plastic composites in L lenses back in the 70s...they have a lot of experience with them. Modern Photography magazine did the same kind of disassembly reports as Cicala, and came to the same kinds of favorable conclusions back then.

Click to expand...

Few years ago during paracute jump the skydiver dropped his rebel several hundreds of feets.

The rebel being all plastic of course worked when he found it.

--
KEG

drsnoopy said:

It’s not “cheap plastic” - it’s no less precisely made, and it has some advantages. Won’t dent if dropped, won’t show silver marks if scratched, is more stable thermally, doesn’t corrode - and presumably tolerates getting wet better than metal. If lubricant dries out, you won’t get metal-metal wear. The internal moving surfaces of many older lenses were already plastic. Also it’s lighter (matters when travelling, hiking etc). Why exactly are you worried - is it just the perceived “feel” or a specific engineering issue?

Click to expand...

All you talked has nothing to do with the reason Canon uses more plastic to make RF lens.

No.

The only reason is, it's cheaper.

Plastic is always cheap option to metal when it comes to material selection of industrial product design unless for optical transparency or electric insulation.

Someone say plastic is light. No, it's heavier than metal if measured with same strength since plastic has to be thicker. The reduced weight of the lens is from less glass elements design, not the plastic barrel. If a plastic lens is really light ( oops as plastic ), it means compromising.

The only good reason to use more plastic is to keep this industry alive. We need to keep buying/upgrading the camera and lens to like how we do to our smartphones.





Nothing lasts forever.

RDM5546 said:

yerach said:

pknittel said:

I am considering adding a Canon R5 C to my current setup (A7S III), and one thing that concerns me a little is the value proposition and build quality of the RF lens ecosystem.

With the RF lens lineup, it seems everything is both more expensive, with unnoticeable IQ improvements over the EF lens, and with worse build quality on the L lineup: all plastic, no metal; as compared to the EF L series which feature sturdy metal construction. Most of the RF lens seem to also rely heavily on camera correction, with significant barrel distortion which reduces IQ on corners.

Compared to the Sony E-mount, I can get quality zooms from Sigma, with incredible image quality and a solid, metal construction.

Should I be concerned about the plasticy build quality of the RF lens system? I simply don't think a multi-thousand dollar lens should be made of plastic. While I take care of my equipment, with years of use, drops and accidents happen.

Click to expand...

my RF L lenses are rock solid! but light, so...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rock solid plastic . That was a good one :-D .

RDM5546 said:

RDM5546 said:

if you like heavy-weight (literally) lenses, stick with EF and Sigma glass, and find a good chiropractic...

Click to expand...

I agree. I have 14 L lenses and 8 RF lenses and one RF-S lens. I have five Sigma lenses too. The RF lenses are smaller and lighter. They focus faster

Click to expand...

Not all, one example for all is terribly slow RF 85/2 which focuses notably slower that a 30 years old design of EF 85/1.8.

But yes, there are very fast focusing RFs which have no match with their EF predecessor (24-105L for instance).

RDM5546 said:

and in some cases better than the EF lenses.

Click to expand...

With going from 5d mk III (which can hardly be considered as having a bad AF system) to an R6 the keeper rate with my EF lenses grew up significantly. I do not see literally anything wrong with the AF precision of EF lenses on my R6 even with lenses like 105/1.4 which are capable of incredibly shallow DOF.

RDM5546 said:

The EF lenses are very good in all respects including IQ but the RF lenses are all top notch.

Click to expand...

Not true for all RF lenses at all. Very true for some of them and very untrue for others. The amount of vignetting and fringing brought by some RF lenses is huge...

RDM5546 said:

My Sigma Art lenses were inexpensive/affordable but big and heavy.

Click to expand...

This is due to the superior optical design and much sturdier built quality. It is something for something.

RDM5546 said:

The EF and Sigma lenses seem more rugged but that may be just because the are heavier. I have no doubt of the ruggedness of the RF lenses but that take time in the field to confirm. The RF lenses have more plastic coverings but it appears to be a very rugged plastic

Click to expand...

Yet in bends if you grab them a bit more firmly. Firstly noticed with RF 24-105L but same with RF 15-35L.

RDM5546 said:

which is very comfortable as the metal lenses tend to be uncomfortable to hold outdoors in the extremes of heat or cold.

Click to expand...

Honestly I never did experience a metal lens barrel being so hot that it would be uncomfortable to hold. Even in the summer Africa... And when it is freezing, I wear gloves...

RDM5546 said:

I did not not need buy any RF lenses and could have avoided spending some big money. My EF lenses would do a good job, though are bigger, heavier and take up more room in the bag. When action shooting dealing with the necessary EF to RF lens adapters when using the EF lenses is annoying.

Click to expand...

With the amount of lenses you did collect it is understandable. My usual "go to" photo bag occupation is up to 5 lenses (4 EF) to which I bought an adapter for each of them. So no switching at all.

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

yerach said:

pknittel said:

I am considering adding a Canon R5 C to my current setup (A7S III), and one thing that concerns me a little is the value proposition and build quality of the RF lens ecosystem.

With the RF lens lineup, it seems everything is both more expensive, with unnoticeable IQ improvements over the EF lens, and with worse build quality on the L lineup: all plastic, no metal; as compared to the EF L series which feature sturdy metal construction. Most of the RF lens seem to also rely heavily on camera correction, with significant barrel distortion which reduces IQ on corners.

Compared to the Sony E-mount, I can get quality zooms from Sigma, with incredible image quality and a solid, metal construction.

Should I be concerned about the plasticy build quality of the RF lens system? I simply don't think a multi-thousand dollar lens should be made of plastic. While I take care of my equipment, with years of use, drops and accidents happen.

Click to expand...

my RF L lenses are rock solid! but light, so...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rock solid plastic . That was a good one :-D .

Canon_Guy said:

Canon_Guy said:

if you like heavy-weight (literally) lenses, stick with EF and Sigma glass, and find a good chiropractic...

Click to expand...

I agree. I have 14 L lenses and 8 RF lenses and one RF-S lens. I have five Sigma lenses too. The RF lenses are smaller and lighter. They focus faster

Click to expand...

Not all, one example for all is terribly slow RF 85/2 which focuses notably slower that a 30 years old design of EF 85/1.8.

But yes, there are very fast focusing RFs which have no match with their EF predecessor (24-105L for instance).

Canon_Guy said:

and in some cases better than the EF lenses.

Click to expand...

With going from 5d mk III (which can hardly be considered as having a bad AF system) to an R6 the keeper rate with my EF lenses grew up significantly. I do not see literally anything wrong with the AF precision of EF lenses on my R6 even with lenses like 105/1.4 which are capable of incredibly shallow DOF.

Canon_Guy said:

The EF lenses are very good in all respects including IQ but the RF lenses are all top notch.

Click to expand...

Not true for all RF lenses at all. Very true for some of them and very untrue for others. The amount of vignetting and fringing brought by some RF lenses is huge...

Canon_Guy said:

My Sigma Art lenses were inexpensive/affordable but big and heavy.

Click to expand...

This is due to the superior optical design and much sturdier built quality. It is something for something.

Canon_Guy said:

The EF and Sigma lenses seem more rugged but that may be just because the are heavier. I have no doubt of the ruggedness of the RF lenses but that take time in the field to confirm. The RF lenses have more plastic coverings but it appears to be a very rugged plastic

Click to expand...

Yet in bends if you grab them a bit more firmly. Firstly noticed with RF 24-105L but same with RF 15-35L.

Canon_Guy said:

which is very comfortable as the metal lenses tend to be uncomfortable to hold outdoors in the extremes of heat or cold.

Click to expand...

Honestly I never did experience a metal lens barrel being so hot that it would be uncomfortable to hold. Even in the summer Africa... And when it is freezing, I wear gloves...

Click to expand...

I guess different people are different. You clearly macho hands. My delicate hands have been very uncomfortable more than once shooting the EF 100-400f2.8 on a tripod. Then I got a lens cover for it which was much easier to touch when in the bright sun. Cold is only a problem if you forget your gloves.

KEG said:

RDKirk said:

noggin2k1 said:

There is no one better qualified to talk about lens construction and ruggedness than Roger Cicala, and to quote him on the (plastic) RF 70-200/2.8;

"This is going to hold up better than a metal lens"

He has nothing but praise for the construction of RF lenses, and that's enough for me.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/

Click to expand...

Canon first began using plastic composites in L lenses back in the 70s...they have a lot of experience with them. Modern Photography magazine did the same kind of disassembly reports as Cicala, and came to the same kinds of favorable conclusions back then.

Click to expand...

Few years ago during paracute jump the skydiver dropped his rebel several hundreds of feets.

The rebel being all plastic of course worked when he found it.

Click to expand...

There are very cheap plastics that break easily, however there are more expensive plastic that are very, very strong. Lexan is a plastic that is used to create built-proof canopies in fighter airplanes. The camera applications can afford the very best plastics for the application. I am not worrying about the strength of plastic in Canon cameras because I never heard anyone have a failure of the plastic. I have accidentally do bad things myself and never had a problem with the plastic. Metal will deform and stay bent when stressed and many reviewers seem to like metal over plastic but I would them offer their evidence of Canon camera plastic failing. I would expect a plastic lens mount would be the most likely form of failure.

RDM5546 said:

Canon_Guy said:

RDM5546 said:

yerach said:

pknittel said:

I am considering adding a Canon R5 C to my current setup (A7S III), and one thing that concerns me a little is the value proposition and build quality of the RF lens ecosystem.

With the RF lens lineup, it seems everything is both more expensive, with unnoticeable IQ improvements over the EF lens, and with worse build quality on the L lineup: all plastic, no metal; as compared to the EF L series which feature sturdy metal construction. Most of the RF lens seem to also rely heavily on camera correction, with significant barrel distortion which reduces IQ on corners.

Compared to the Sony E-mount, I can get quality zooms from Sigma, with incredible image quality and a solid, metal construction.

Should I be concerned about the plasticy build quality of the RF lens system? I simply don't think a multi-thousand dollar lens should be made of plastic. While I take care of my equipment, with years of use, drops and accidents happen.

Click to expand...

my RF L lenses are rock solid! but light, so...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rock solid plastic . That was a good one :-D .

RDM5546 said:

RDM5546 said:

if you like heavy-weight (literally) lenses, stick with EF and Sigma glass, and find a good chiropractic...

Click to expand...

I agree. I have 14 L lenses and 8 RF lenses and one RF-S lens. I have five Sigma lenses too. The RF lenses are smaller and lighter. They focus faster

Click to expand...

Not all, one example for all is terribly slow RF 85/2 which focuses notably slower that a 30 years old design of EF 85/1.8.

But yes, there are very fast focusing RFs which have no match with their EF predecessor (24-105L for instance).

RDM5546 said:

and in some cases better than the EF lenses.

Click to expand...

With going from 5d mk III (which can hardly be considered as having a bad AF system) to an R6 the keeper rate with my EF lenses grew up significantly. I do not see literally anything wrong with the AF precision of EF lenses on my R6 even with lenses like 105/1.4 which are capable of incredibly shallow DOF.

RDM5546 said:

The EF lenses are very good in all respects including IQ but the RF lenses are all top notch.

Click to expand...

Not true for all RF lenses at all. Very true for some of them and very untrue for others. The amount of vignetting and fringing brought by some RF lenses is huge...

RDM5546 said:

My Sigma Art lenses were inexpensive/affordable but big and heavy.

Click to expand...

This is due to the superior optical design and much sturdier built quality. It is something for something.

RDM5546 said:

The EF and Sigma lenses seem more rugged but that may be just because the are heavier. I have no doubt of the ruggedness of the RF lenses but that take time in the field to confirm. The RF lenses have more plastic coverings but it appears to be a very rugged plastic

Click to expand...

Yet in bends if you grab them a bit more firmly. Firstly noticed with RF 24-105L but same with RF 15-35L.

RDM5546 said:

which is very comfortable as the metal lenses tend to be uncomfortable to hold outdoors in the extremes of heat or cold.

Click to expand...

Honestly I never did experience a metal lens barrel being so hot that it would be uncomfortable to hold. Even in the summer Africa... And when it is freezing, I wear gloves...

Click to expand...

I guess different people are different. You clearly macho hands.

Click to expand...

:-D

RDM5546 said:

My delicate hands have been very uncomfortable more than once shooting the EF 100-400f2.8 on a tripod.

Click to expand...

On a tripod we very usually touch only the zoom or focus ring since we don't hold the lens. And its rubber is even less prone to an extensive heat.

Not saying it is not possibke, just was in a very hot environment and never got anything close to annoying.

But yet, people are different and nothing against that of course.

RDM5546 said:

Then I got a lens cover for it which was much easier to touch when in the bright sun. Cold is only a problem if you forget your gloves.

Click to expand...

Nimonus said:

drsnoopy said:

It’s not “cheap plastic” - it’s no less precisely made, and it has some advantages. Won’t dent if dropped, won’t show silver marks if scratched, is more stable thermally, doesn’t corrode - and presumably tolerates getting wet better than metal. If lubricant dries out, you won’t get metal-metal wear. The internal moving surfaces of many older lenses were already plastic. Also it’s lighter (matters when travelling, hiking etc). Why exactly are you worried - is it just the perceived “feel” or a specific engineering issue?

Click to expand...

All you talked has nothing to do with the reason Canon uses more plastic to make RF lens.

No.

The only reason is, it's cheaper.

Plastic is always cheap option to metal when it comes to material selection of industrial product design unless for optical transparency or electric insulation.

Click to expand...

Have you ever compared the price, weight, toughness and stiffness of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic tripod with an aluminium alloy one?

Nimonus said:

Someone say plastic is light. No, it's heavier than metal if measured with same strength since plastic has to be thicker.

Click to expand...

But polycarbonate is less than half the density of aluminium, which in turn is a third of the density of steel. Metal hasn't a huge advantage over polycarbonate for bending strength and stiffness, especially if the polycarbonate is reinforced with fibres.

Nimonus said:

The reduced weight of the lens is from less glass elements design, not the plastic barrel. If a plastic lens is really light ( oops as plastic ), it means compromising.

Click to expand...

All engineering is compromising between cost, weight, strength, stiffness, precision, stability, durability and constructibility.

Nimonus said:

The only good reason to use more plastic is to keep this industry alive. We need to keep buying/upgrading the camera and lens to like how we do to our smartphones.



Nothing lasts forever.

Click to expand...

Sittatunga said:

Nimonus said:

drsnoopy said:

It’s not “cheap plastic” - it’s no less precisely made, and it has some advantages. Won’t dent if dropped, won’t show silver marks if scratched, is more stable thermally, doesn’t corrode - and presumably tolerates getting wet better than metal. If lubricant dries out, you won’t get metal-metal wear. The internal moving surfaces of many older lenses were already plastic. Also it’s lighter (matters when travelling, hiking etc). Why exactly are you worried - is it just the perceived “feel” or a specific engineering issue?

Click to expand...

All you talked has nothing to do with the reason Canon uses more plastic to make RF lens.

No.

The only reason is, it's cheaper.

Plastic is always cheap option to metal when it comes to material selection of industrial product design unless for optical transparency or electric insulation.

Click to expand...

Have you ever compared the price, weight, toughness and stiffness of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic tripod with an aluminium alloy one?

Sittatunga said:

Someone say plastic is light. No, it's heavier than metal if measured with same strength since plastic has to be thicker.

Click to expand...

But polycarbonate is less than half the density of aluminium, which in turn is a third of the density of steel. Metal hasn't a huge advantage over polycarbonate for bending strength and stiffness, especially if the polycarbonate is reinforced with fibres.

Sittatunga said:

The reduced weight of the lens is from less glass elements design, not the plastic barrel. If a plastic lens is really light ( oops as plastic ), it means compromising.

Click to expand...

All engineering is compromising between cost, weight, strength, stiffness, precision, stability, durability and constructibility.

Sittatunga said:

The only good reason to use more plastic is to keep this industry alive. We need to keep buying/upgrading the camera and lens to like how we do to our smartphones.



Nothing lasts forever.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You must be lawyer. You talk for your clients not the justice.

And you have no working experience on material, LOL.

Nimonus said:

Sittatunga said:

Nimonus said:

drsnoopy said:

It’s not “cheap plastic” - it’s no less precisely made, and it has some advantages. Won’t dent if dropped, won’t show silver marks if scratched, is more stable thermally, doesn’t corrode - and presumably tolerates getting wet better than metal. If lubricant dries out, you won’t get metal-metal wear. The internal moving surfaces of many older lenses were already plastic. Also it’s lighter (matters when travelling, hiking etc). Why exactly are you worried - is it just the perceived “feel” or a specific engineering issue?

Click to expand...

All you talked has nothing to do with the reason Canon uses more plastic to make RF lens.

No.

The only reason is, it's cheaper.

Plastic is always cheap option to metal when it comes to material selection of industrial product design unless for optical transparency or electric insulation.

Click to expand...

Have you ever compared the price, weight, toughness and stiffness of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic tripod with an aluminium alloy one?

Nimonus said:

Someone say plastic is light. No, it's heavier than metal if measured with same strength since plastic has to be thicker.

Click to expand...

But polycarbonate is less than half the density of aluminium, which in turn is a third of the density of steel. Metal hasn't a huge advantage over polycarbonate for bending strength and stiffness, especially if the polycarbonate is reinforced with fibres.

Nimonus said:

The reduced weight of the lens is from less glass elements design, not the plastic barrel. If a plastic lens is really light ( oops as plastic ), it means compromising.

Click to expand...

All engineering is compromising between cost, weight, strength, stiffness, precision, stability, durability and constructibility.

Nimonus said:

The only good reason to use more plastic is to keep this industry alive. We need to keep buying/upgrading the camera and lens to like how we do to our smartphones.



Nothing lasts forever.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You must be lawyer. You talk for your clients not the justice.

And you have no working experience on material, LOL.

Click to expand...

I'm actually a structural engineer, so I have decades of working experience with all sorts of materials and composites.

Sittatunga said:

Nimonus said:

Sittatunga said:

Nimonus said:

drsnoopy said:

It’s not “cheap plastic” - it’s no less precisely made, and it has some advantages. Won’t dent if dropped, won’t show silver marks if scratched, is more stable thermally, doesn’t corrode - and presumably tolerates getting wet better than metal. If lubricant dries out, you won’t get metal-metal wear. The internal moving surfaces of many older lenses were already plastic. Also it’s lighter (matters when travelling, hiking etc). Why exactly are you worried - is it just the perceived “feel” or a specific engineering issue?

Click to expand...

All you talked has nothing to do with the reason Canon uses more plastic to make RF lens.

No.

The only reason is, it's cheaper.

Plastic is always cheap option to metal when it comes to material selection of industrial product design unless for optical transparency or electric insulation.

Click to expand...

Have you ever compared the price, weight, toughness and stiffness of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic tripod with an aluminium alloy one?

Sittatunga said:

Someone say plastic is light. No, it's heavier than metal if measured with same strength since plastic has to be thicker.

Click to expand...

But polycarbonate is less than half the density of aluminium, which in turn is a third of the density of steel. Metal hasn't a huge advantage over polycarbonate for bending strength and stiffness, especially if the polycarbonate is reinforced with fibres.

Sittatunga said:

The reduced weight of the lens is from less glass elements design, not the plastic barrel. If a plastic lens is really light ( oops as plastic ), it means compromising.

Click to expand...

All engineering is compromising between cost, weight, strength, stiffness, precision, stability, durability and constructibility.

Sittatunga said:

The only good reason to use more plastic is to keep this industry alive. We need to keep buying/upgrading the camera and lens to like how we do to our smartphones.



Nothing lasts forever.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You must be lawyer. You talk for your clients not the justice.

And you have no working experience on material, LOL.

Click to expand...

I'm actually a structural engineer, so I have decades of working experience with all sorts of materials and composites.

Click to expand...

Bazinga Based on the replies I'll go with Sittatunga.

--
Don't Look Up! The very fabric of captured light is noise.