[tennjed]

This is an area where I am pretty ignorant. From reading routine net conversation and comment, I have picked up the attitude that lenses with rotating front elements are inferior.......Cheap. You buy them only as a last resort. Is this belief substantially true? Does the fact that a lens has a rotating front element indicate that the manufacturer was more concerned about economy than quality? Are their other problems inherent to a rotating front element beside the obvious problems associated with using a polarizing filter?

I ask because I noticed that the Pentax 18-135 has a rotating front element. It seems like a good lens, and it is not low priced.

Thanks

---

Last edited by tennjed; 02-27-2015 at 04:55 PM.

[Ole]

The only issue is the difficulty of using polarizing filters if the front element rotates.

There is no 15-135mm lens in the Pentax line-up. Which lens are you referring to?

[tennjed]

My apology, I meant 18-135. Thanks for pointing that mistake out. I will edit

[ramseybuckeye]

If you mean the DA18-135, the front element does not rotate.

[tennjed]

Now I am really feeling like a fool. I am certain that was the lens I was looking at. Not that I doubt you. Does the front element rotate on the DA 50-200? I was looking at both, and for some reason left with the impression the front element on the 18-135 rotated.

[photolady95]

Does the front element rotate on the DA 50-200?

Not on my copy it doesn't. Are you sure your talking about the front element rotating or the focus ring that does rotate?

[tennjed]

Not on my copy it doesn't. Are you sure your talking about the front element rotating or the focus ring that does rotate?

No, I am talking about the glass element. Maybe I was inadvertently rotating the lens body. Sorry for the bother.

[MadMathMind]

The only issue is the difficulty of using polarizing filters if the front element rotates.

Or a petal-shaped hood. For this reason, a wide-angle zoom will be internally focusing. Telephoto zooms can use round hoods (and most people don't put polarizers on them) so internal focusing isn't as important.

[Adam]

This is an area where I am pretty ignorant. From reading routine net conversation and comment, I have picked up the attitude that lenses with rotating front elements are inferior.......Cheap. You buy them only as a last resort. Is this belief substantially true? Does the fact that a lens has a rotating front element indicate that the manufacturer was more concerned about economy than quality? Are their other problems inherent to a rotating front element beside the obvious problems associated with using a polarizing filter?

I ask because I noticed that the Pentax 18-135 has a rotating front element. It seems like a good lens, and it is not low priced.

Thanks

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any DA lens has a rotating front element. I think this style of lens has gone out of fashion, and not surprisingly so since it doesn't exactly help speed up AF performance

[Tanzer]

A rotating front element is not the actual problem; rather, it means you are probably holding a Canon.

[vonBaloney]

Surely no lens designed for a DSLR would because then circular polarizers wouldn't work (essentially) and linear polarizers don't work at all on digital, right?

[Canada_Rockies]

Surely no lens designed for a DSLR would because then circular polarizers wouldn't work (essentially) and linear polarizers don't work at all on digital, right?

Linear Polarizers work just fine. Most of the time. Then you get just the right angle between the polarizer and the AF module, and it all goes West.

[vonBaloney]

Linear Polarizers work just fine. Most of the time. Then you get just the right angle between the polarizer and the AF module, and it all goes West.

Yeah, that's it, they mess up the AF supposedly. Couldn't remember, just knew you're not supposed to use them anymore...

[AquaDome]

I have a Quantray 70-300 with a rotating front element, so they do exist. It is not a hardship.

[Tanzer]

The Canon and Nikon 18-55 kit lenses have rotating front elements. Most folks using the kit lenses probably wouldn't be using a CP. This is not intended to be a disparaging remark about kit lenses or their users; rather it is a balance between cost and features that those manufacturers have made.