> -----Original Message----- > From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Cheap and lightweight plastic? HAR. Old-fashioned view. There is > >nothing cheap about the plastics used nowadays. > > > There is. Metal processing is much more expensive (but more > exact) than > the injection moulding used to produce plastic parts. That is why the > cheap lenses are plastic, the expensive ones are not. > Especially nowadays.
Modern plastics are actually very good at many tasks, and blindly thinking metal is better for everything IS an old-fashioned view as Brad says. > >There's more R&D money in strong plastics than metal. > > > Do you have numbers? That magnesium alloy of the MZ-S was not > cheap in > development either, I guess. However, the old metals steel, > aluminium, > and brass beat all plastic materials hands down in all > respects but one: > weight. While I suspect that Brad's comment was pure speculation, I am certain you are wrong that weight is the only advantage to plasics. I thought impact absorbtion was better for one. When plastic is deformed slightly it is more likely to return to its original shape than metal. > >Lightweight. I hope so, who wants a heavy lens when you can > have the > >same thing lighter? > > > Because it feels better. Not necessarily. Many say the only downside to the FA*24 is its heavy weight. I don't really see that myself and I own one, but this is a subjective issue and varies from lens to lens so you cannot generalise like this. > >No balance arguments, not at lenses this size. > > > Why not? Possibly because neither is too heavy or too light so there is no real issue. > >I guess carbon-tripods are cheap and lightweight too, it's > only carbon, > >not metal, and it's light. No, that arguement doesn't work does it? > > > I cannot comment on carbon tripods as I have only metal ones. And a > heavy tripod is a good thing sometimes, isn't it? Yeah, unless you gott carry it a long way. I see Brad has remembered my example and reused it. He is right - it is a good example of how moder lightweight materials are much better than metal. Carbon fibre is also more similar to wood in terms of vibration absorbsion which metal tripods just transmit to the camera. The only problem with CF tripods is the lack of weight making them top heavy if you put big stuff on them, which is why they usually have slings to fill with rocks, or hanging points for your backpack to weigh it down. What I would like to add it that build is not just about maerials though, but also fit and finish. How big are the gaps between parts, how fliud is the movement, how much play is there in the lens barrel and the focussing ring? You really need to handle a lens to assess its build - materials and textbooks don't tell the whole story. I would suggest Brad handles a 77ltd or even the FA*24 and see for himself what the difference in build is. The first time you hold the 77 is a real awakening. Warning though - you will HAVe to obtain one by any means after holding it!
