OK Brad, you hanve a valid point here, but it kinda gets lost in a lot of posturing.
The point is you can get some very expensive, 'pro' rated (yeah I know this is subjective but in cases like this canon WA I think its proven) lenses which use plastic. OK, they may use plastic because it is lighter or cheaper or whatever, but they would not do so if it was not up to the job that a pro demands. Whether it was the BEST choice of materials or not, who knows, but its good enough. Plastic is not just a poor man's choice these days - it can and is good enough in a lot of cases. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 November 2002 00:25 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL > WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:29 PM > Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL > WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Brad Dobo > > Re:WideangleDilemmas > > > > > > > Would I be in error if I said that the black plastics on lens > > tended to also > > > scratch less than a smooth metal and a not so hardy paint? > > I'm not talking > > > about the paint jobs on some of the better cameras Pentax > > makes, new or old, > > > as the LX or MZ-S. Just more of a vanity issue if an issue at > > all. > > > > Who knows? Who cares? > > There must be a reason for why expensive pro oriented > cameras are made > > of metal, and cheap consumer cameras are plastic. Maybe the > guys who > > make this stuff know something we don't? > > > > Back before you were born, the debate was whether a black > camera was > > better than a chrome one. Apparently, chrome cameras were plated > > aluminium, and black ones were enameled brass. The black ones were > > "pro", the chrome ones were "amateur". The black ones > started to look > > really nice after some of the paint got worn off the > corners and the > > brass body started to show. > > We considered it a sign of a camera that earned it's way in the > > world, and respected the camera for taking the knocks. > > Plastic cameras don't get beauty marks. They start out ugly, and > > as time goes by, they get uglier. > > > > William Robb > > Only to William Robb, no one else, > > Oh geez William Robb, you are getting worked up again. Who > knows? Someone has to. Who cares? I do, what do you think > about that? > > Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were > related. I happened to see an add in a flyer by Henry's > (Toronto boys shall know of) of a 'pro' Canon USM this that > the other 16-36mm f-something, and for a cheap plastic as you > say, it was $2700Cdn. Maybe you're made of money William > Robb raising goats on the flatlands, but that seemed to be > pretty pricey to > me. It was plastic, definitely not cheap! I been seeing a > lot of very > pricey and 'supposedly' very good lenses from other brands, > and a lot of them are plastic too. Oh and please do not > mention Limiteds, that's getting old on me. > > Back before I was born camera's meant ^%$& to me, and those > cameras still do! Beauty marks....HAR HAR (geez, I picked > that up from this list!) Since we're getting all subjective > now, I see them as signs of abusive or heavy use, in which > case I consider them suspect, as I do all your Wild West > William Robb opinions. > > And we are talking lens, but you changed it into cameras. > Stick to lenses. And while your sticking it, look at all the > bad old lens that were metal, wait, what I just said cannot > be true can it? > > Yup, a little snotty abusive reply just slightly worse than > yours and your general attitude in general, generally here, > > Thank you and have a Nice Day, > > Brad > >
