[gofour3]

Those old lenses aren't really bad, though, and what makes a lens "better" varies from person to person. Some people love the feel of those old, pre-A lenses, and refuse to touch a modern "plastic fantastic."

The pre "A" Series lenses are the ones that will last for decades, the newer DA lenses will be long gone in a landfill.

Phil.

[carrrlangas]

The pre "A" Series lenses are the ones that will last for decades, the newer DA lenses will be long gone in a landfill.

Why do you think so?

DA lenses, and all the way back to A lenses have lots going on against K or M series:
Better coatings
Better sealing
Better manufacturing process / techniques
Not to mention new tech such as ED or AL elements

Perhaps Autofocus mechanism and electronics makes the product more prone to failure but either DA or K lenses will last 50 years at least if cared properly

[stevebrot]

Why do you think so?

Build, build, build


Steve

[carrrlangas]

Build, build, build

because of metal? Modern plastics are just as good.. Or even better! ..abosrbing impact; handling of temperature changes
Or because of tolerances? I don´t know about that but I guess this is related to a lot of factors

[wombat2go]

> Modern plastics are just as good.. Or even better!<

Temp coeff of expansion:
Plastics typically 80 to 180 m/mK typical working temp range -40 C to 80 C so don't leave it in your car
Aluminum 22.2 m/mK, you can leave that one in your car.
So Al expands at about 1/4 the rate of plastic.
Of course I don't walk around with all this , but it happens I just built a camera body and I wanted to make sure the thing was slightly past infinity on the hottest day. I don't care if it gets a bit out of wack on a Jan morning in Michigan.

[carrrlangas]

Temp coeff of expansion:

Reinforced polycarobante (like the one on DA* lenses. Don´t know about others like DA L 35, for example) have a smaller coefficient than stainless steel or aluminum and isn´t as good a heat conductor.

*Built a camera body? sounds great, did you documented-shared it?

[ChopperCharles]

Sigma 28-105mm UC-II lens should be avoided at all costs. It's super soft, and doesn't work with older AF film bodies either.

The Promaster 100mm f3.5 macro is an exceptional lens. I believe it's the exact same as the FA-100mm f3.5 Macro. It's THE sharpest lens in my bag, hands down. I get some pretty wonderful images out of it.

Charles.

[Tonto]

As a general rule? Pre A lenses.




K 50/1.2
A 50/1.2
K 50/1.4
M 50/1.4
A 50/1.4 A little stiff
F 50/1.4
FA 50/1.4
M 50/1.7
A 50/1.7
F 50/1.7 My best fifty
FA 50/1.7 fungal
M 50/2
A 50/2
A 50/2.8 Macro
F 50/2.8 Macro
FA 50/2.8 Macro
D FA 50/2.8 Macro
K 50/4 Macro
M 50/4 Macro fungal
Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 (Early 8-Element Variant
SMC/S-M-C/Super Takumar 50mm F1.4
Super Macro-Takumar 50mm F4 Early 1:1 preset version
S-M-C/Super Macro-Takumar 50mm F4


I have most of the old ones and do not use them.

Sell them to someone who WILL love them then! They can't take photos on a shelf! <colour me envious >

[stevebrot]

because of metal? Modern plastics are just as good.. Or even better! ..abosrbing impact; handling of temperature changes
Or because of tolerances? I don´t know about that but I guess this is related to a lot of factors

Because of metal? No, because of build. Simply put, most current crop lenses are not particularly robust. They also lack the hallmarks of precision assembly.

As for plastic...I own a several lenses with significant plastic content. One (Pentax-A 50/1.7) is no longer fully functional due to its plastic parts. Another (Pentax-FA 35/2) demonstrates all of the good things that plastic has to offer. That being said, I am well-aware that none of my lenses (metal or plastic) is likely to survive a good bump or a drop from waist-height to concrete. I also know that there is no repairing a cross-threaded filter ring or worn hood bayonet on the FA 35/2.


Steve

[hoanpham]

Is ones that don't fit the camera bodies you own, the right answer?

Also depends. I rather buy another the body that fit the lens

[wildman]

I have a Rollie, Nikon F, SP 500, Nikon FG 20, Minolta 16mm, Pentax DL, Pentax K20, and finally my "active" camera a K5.
All, so far as I know, in working order.

BTW back in c1991 I bought a Zeiss 7x42 $960, Leica 8x32 $920 and a Sears 7x50 $40 binos.
All of them have seen heavy field use and all of them have not given me a lick of trouble.

Question:

From a purely objective rational design viewpoint why design something to last a hundred years, with all it's added cost to the initial consumer, when you know it will be obsolete within 20?

[GibbyTheMole]

The Promaster 100mm f3.5 macro is an exceptional lens. I believe it's the exact same as the FA-100mm f3.5 Macro. It's THE sharpest lens in my bag, hands down. I get some pretty wonderful images out of it.

Yep. It's staggeringly good. One of my absolute faves.

[ChopperCharles]

Oh and the Tokina AF 28-75 f2.8-4.5 Macro. It's actually a soft-focus lens that's not described as such. Dreamy highlights and not sharp at all unless really stopped down. Unless you specifically want it for that, avoid it. Check my review for sample photos and such. The Tokina AF 35-75 f3.5-4.6 Macro on the other hand is an excellent lens.

Charles.

[Achromatter]

Question:

From a purely objective rational design viewpoint why design something to last a hundred years, with all it's added cost to the initial consumer, when you know it will be obsolete in no more than 20?

Hi,

I presume you're referring to camera lenses specifically, as I don't think binoculars* really ever become obsolete. As far as camera lenses being built to last, I'd think a major factor for that is pride of workmanship and pride in the product your company produces, as well as the company's reputation, which all used to be as, if not sometimes more, important than profit. This is something that IMHO is very lacking, if not totally non-existent nowadays.

A lens built to close tolerances, and of quality materials, is generally more rugged/durable and won't get whacked out of alignment, nor rendered inoperable, with the slightest bump, and be able to tolerate temperature variations without jamming etc. Before the whole global economy, consumerism, the Internet, Wal-mart-ification of everything, etc., word-of-mouth and user experiences were very important to manufacturers, now, it seems not so much, as there are so many "manufacturers" and products, and so many people buying this stuff, that it seems to not matter as much, at least on consumer items(look at all the items sold on amazon with hundreds or even thousands of one and two star reviews, yet folks keep buying and then leaving more one and two star reviews).

I'm sure the pro stuff; cameras $5-10,000+ and lenses $2-3,000+ is still very high quality and built to last, since they likely make a lot more profit on those, and reputation is still somewhat important at those levels.

I also suppose that since the advent of auto-focus lenses, as well as the now generally adopted practice of planned-obsolescence, this idea of lenses being "built to last" is going the way of the dinosaur. What with manufacturer's being primarily ,or even exclusively, profit-driven, intentionally changing mounts/designs to force everyone to buy whole new systems every few years, as well as new innovations in motors, electronics, etc., I wouldn't expect any consumer level lenses, nor cameras to ever be built to last anymore(remember small appliances you could actually repair?).

*I have several binoculars that are many decades old, and as long as people have two eyes, spaced approximately 55-70mm apart, they'll keep working unless they are damaged. Mine all still work great.

[bdery]

Simply put, most current crop lenses are not particularly robust. They also lack the hallmarks of precision assembly

Care to elaborate on "robust"?

Precision assembly is leagues ahead now than it was even 10 years ago.

(Pentax-A 50/1.7) is no longer fully functional due to its plastic parts.

Again, care to elaborate?

You can do anything, literally anything, with plastic. There are as many types of plastics as there are applications. It's quite extravagant to categorize all plastics in one big bunch... Just like all metals don't have the same properties.