+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break (/showthread.php?tid=110546)
Re: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break - prymsnap - 01-21-2011
Yikes! I've been on the fence re. the Nikon 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8 and was leaning toward the 1.4, I was planning to pull the trigger in February. Now I'm back to the drawing board...
Re: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break - cbelt3 - 01-21-2011
It's all in the engineering. Modern cost reduction practices involve the use of cheaper and lighter-weight materials (plastics, composites). It's a hell of a lot cheaper to plastic mold a part than it is to put it into a milling machine and machine it from an aluminum casting or blank.
The older lenses were made from machined aluminum, steel, titanium, and heavy plastics, As a result, when I drop my 1960's 105mm Nikkor portrait lens, it bounces (yes, I put my foot out, it's reflex). And the F2 body bounces too.
It's also in the specs. The engineering involved often does NOT include 'drop testing'. Which is, IMHO, a bad idea. If someone offered a ruggedized lens, would you buy it ? Even if it cost 2-4x normal lens price ?
Re: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break - pRICE cUBE - 01-21-2011
cbelt3 wrote:
It's all in the engineering. Modern cost reduction practices involve the use of cheaper and lighter-weight materials (plastics, composites). It's a hell of a lot cheaper to plastic mold a part than it is to put it into a milling machine and machine it from an aluminum casting or blank.
The older lenses were made from machined aluminum, steel, titanium, and heavy plastics, As a result, when I drop my 1960's 105mm Nikkor portrait lens, it bounces (yes, I put my foot out, it's reflex). And the F2 body bounces too.
It's also in the specs. The engineering involved often does NOT include 'drop testing'. Which is, IMHO, a bad idea. If someone offered a ruggedized lens, would you buy it ? Even if it cost 2-4x normal lens price ?
If it auto focused quickly and accurately, yes. I have built my reputation on grabbing the most definitive of moments and that is what clients look for with my work. So I chose AF over build quality but a $500 lens shouldn't have broken with a bump in a bag.
Re: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break - pRICE cUBE - 01-21-2011
prymsnap wrote:
Yikes! I've been on the fence re. the Nikon 50mm 1.4 vs 1.8 and was leaning toward the 1.4, I was planning to pull the trigger in February. Now I'm back to the drawing board...
Well, there is still the 50mm 1.4 from Sigma but at this point I think I am getting a 50mm 1.8 or a 50mm 1.4 non af-s old school version.
Re: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break - AllGold - 01-21-2011
Opinions are so mixed on the Sigma that I don't think it's the answer.
Re: OT: Lenses: I swear they make this stuff to break - pRICE cUBE - 01-21-2011
AllGold wrote:
Opinions are so mixed on the Sigma that I don't think it's the answer.
That is what makes me think I should just get a 1.8 or the older 1.4 but the af-s 1.4 was mighty nice full frame.