Originally posted by Rondec I'm not sure why the focus here is on the materials that make up the lens. The issue is optics, isn't it? If the lens was a dog, even if it was a beautiful metallic shell around it, it wouldn't make a difference.
The issue I brought up isn't about optics. If the issue is always optics, then why do we all talk about how great the Pentax limiteds are and why they hold a premium price yet they are not the fastest lenses around (eg. build quality and size)? If the limited were in plastic, but with the same optics, would you say the same thing about them?
If I wanted plastic I'd go buy a Canon.
My DA* 300 is basically a "pro" lens with build of a limited. The DA* 55 is not because it has a non-metal exterior. I assumed the 55 would be just like the 300 in build quality, but just smaller of course.
I traded in a 50mm f1.4 recently to help fund a K-5 + 55mm and this DA* was basically a replacement for the 50. The materials on the 50 were not that much lower than the 55, hence part of my disappointment.
The whole point of this posting was to state why I feel it's strange the 55 doesn't match the 300 in build.