[Al_Kahollick]

GOsh that's a horrible thing to happen. Glad you got it sorted/

On the side note - seriously - a plastic mount ? Jeezz I avoid them as fire - all my lenses are metal mounted and I can't stand a thought that I'd need to mount a plastic mount lens on my cameras ( both DSLR and film) - man it's simple wrong :P Anyway How much do they save by fitting this crap instead of piece of metal - I wonder is it really worth that and then to deal with all the complains and returns. meh

I'm with you, I don't have nor want plastic mounts on my lenses, and I must admit, this is the first instance of non accident related breakage I've heard of. That said, they indeed save a boatload of money using plastic over metal, and it also has the added benefit of perhaps pushing users like you and I that don't want plastic toward their more expensive line of lenses made with metal mounts! Gladly, I've been a pentax user for quite some time and my LBA is pretty well satisfied, so it's a moot point for me.

[manntax]

I'm with you, I don't have nor want plastic mounts on my lenses, and I must admit, this is the first instance of non accident related breakage I've heard of. That said, they indeed save a boatload of money using plastic over metal, and it also has the added benefit of perhaps pushing users like you and I that don't want plastic toward their more expensive line of lenses made with metal mounts! Gladly, I've been a pentax user for quite some time and my LBA is pretty well satisfied, so it's a moot point for me.

I literally had only one time in my life a lens with plastic mount in my hands - and it wasn''t even for Pentax - but for small Canon IX APS film camera. I had the same lens in metal Pentax mount and so I was able to see and feel the difference. From that point on I have nothing but passionate hate for plastic lens mounts. As you say this is probably one of their marketing tricks to make an artificial difference between similar products - only to cash in some more money. This is sad thing as also our environment is suffering - these tons of plastic does come at a price

[SurferBud3]

I was originally going to buy the DA version of this lens because I didn't think I could get a DA L new. Saw both on Amazon, the DA was $370 and the DA L was $240. Realizing that they're both optically identical and the only differences being the lack of quick shift and metal mount on the DA L I felt smart saving myself $130 (which I spent on tacos).

Hopefully the replacement can give me some good years of use. It really is a great non-expensive lens.

[manntax]

I was originally going to buy the DA version of this lens because I didn't think I could get a DA L new. Saw both on Amazon, the DA was $370 and the DA L was $240. Realizing that they're both optically identical and the only differences being the lack of quick shift and metal mount on the DA L I felt smart saving myself $130 (which I spent on tacos).

Hopefully the replacement can give me some good years of use. It really is a great non-expensive lens.

Surely I can't argue with that logic Nonetheless I have developed bad allergic reaction to plastic recently so would need to shel out that $130 for my healt sake - if I was in the position to buy this lens. Thankfully I am not that fan of zooms anyway so I should be good

Hopefully your replacement will last longer. I would advise you to be careful while its mounted though - seems they can't take this much of abuse as a proper metal mount could.

[Kobayashi.K]

GOsh that's a horrible thing to happen. Glad you got it sorted/

On the side note - seriously - a plastic mount ? Jeezz I avoid them as fire - all my lenses are metal mounted and I can't stand a thought that I'd need to mount a plastic mount lens on my cameras ( both DSLR and film) - man it's simple wrong :P Anyway How much do they save by fitting this crap instead of piece of metal - I wonder is it really worth that and then to deal with all the complains and returns. meh

+1
Finally someone who dares to say that a plastic mount is a bad idea.

In my view, it's a misconceived construction too. OP's photo shows that the mount has a tiny cross section at the position of the screw-drive, notably at the outside where it's most vulnerable. That should be acceptable with metal, but not with plastic.

It could well be that Pentax has stretched it a bit too far and I'm curiously waiting how the DAL kit lenses for the K-50/K-500's will fare.

[VisualDarkness]

+1
Finally someone who dares to say that a plastic mount is a bad idea.

In my view, it's a misconceived construction too. OP's photo shows that the mount has a tiny cross section at the position of the screw-drive, notably at the outside where it's most vulnerable. That should be acceptable with metal, but not with plastic.

It could well be that Pentax has stretched it a bit too far and I'm curiously waiting how the DAL kit lenses for the K-50/K-500's will fare.

Yeah, they should be very durable for normal use and this is the first reported breaking I've read about too.

There is one major pro for plastic mounts though of cheap lenses. If they get dropped or abused it's more likely that the mount will break and take a lot of the force, without affecting the rest of the lens, nor the camera. Metal mounts on the other hand seems to transfer the force to the camera body mount an the first part of the lens tube either misaligning the cameras' mount or spliting the lens in two.

I literally had only one time in my life a lens with plastic mount in my hands - and it wasn''t even for Pentax - but for small Canon IX APS film camera. I had the same lens in metal Pentax mount and so I was able to see and feel the difference. From that point on I have nothing but passionate hate for plastic lens mounts. As you say this is probably one of their marketing tricks to make an artificial difference between similar products - only to cash in some more money. This is sad thing as also our environment is suffering - these tons of plastic does come at a price

Well, I bet you that the metal isn't that great for the environment either. In many countries a large area around the mines are completely devoid of wildlife for different reasons and the mines and transports are both polluting and majorly transforming huge areas.

[manntax]

Yeah, they should be very durable for normal use and this is the first reported breaking I've read about too.

Well, I bet you that the metal isn't that great for the environment either. In many countries a large area around the mines are completely devoid of wildlife for different reasons and the mines and transports are both polluting and majorly transforming huge areas.

Will all due respect I allow myself to disagree on this one. Although there might be area or two where mining affects the environment - but they the final product is still a very *organic* one so to speak - in contrary to plastic which is well known for being major cause of serious problems all over the world. People were mining for thousands of years and yet we faced a real serious breakdown on environment someone coincidentally at the same time as the plastics were introduced at large scale..

Not that plasc hasn't got any good use - but for that crucial part of a lens - I'' rather have it made out of something more durable than plastic. And frankly argument about plasticy mounts being a good way to absorb the shock when lens is dropped or camera abused doesn't convince me really - I had recently an accident where my K-01 fall with lens attached - right on front element - with cap fortunately - so cap got scrapped and then you would need to look with a candle for any trace of this fall on either body or the lens itself. On the other hand I bet that the force would cause any plastic mount to break into pieces - as the fall was quite fatal - from over 1m height on solid concrete.

so... yeah .. metal please :P

[VisualDarkness]

Will all due respect I allow myself to disagree on this one. Although there might be area or two where mining affects the environment - but they the final product is still a very *organic* one so to speak - in contrary to plastic which is well known for being major cause of serious problems all over the world. People were mining for thousands of years and yet we faced a real serious breakdown on environment someone coincidentally at the same time as the plastics were introduced at large scale..

Not that plasc hasn't got any good use - but for that crucial part of a lens - I'' rather have it made out of something more durable than plastic. And frankly argument about plasticy mounts being a good way to absorb the shock when lens is dropped or camera abused doesn't convince me really - I had recently an accident where my K-01 fall with lens attached - right on front element - with cap fortunately - so cap got scrapped and then you would need to look with a candle for any trace of this fall on either body or the lens itself. On the other hand I bet that the force would cause any plastic mount to break into pieces - as the fall was quite fatal - from over 1m height on solid concrete.

so... yeah .. metal please :P

I agree that in most cases now cheap steel is better than cheap plastics, though plastics got a better potential to get a lot better with new production techniques and new philosophies but large industry mining will always be heavily destructive no matter what you do.

[JimJohnson]

GOsh that's a horrible thing to happen. Glad you got it sorted/

On the side note - seriously - a plastic mount ? Jeezz I avoid them as fire - all my lenses are metal mounted and I can't stand a thought that I'd need to mount a plastic mount lens on my cameras ( both DSLR and film) - man it's simple wrong :P Anyway How much do they save by fitting this crap instead of piece of metal - I wonder is it really worth that and then to deal with all the complains and returns. meh

Generally speaking, those plastic mounts are strong. Any shock severe enough to break the mount is highly likely to cause other damage to the lens. When the rest of the lens barrel is also plastic, the only thing a metal mount is doing is adding weight - or (this is an opinion, not a personal attack) snob appeal.

[Al_Kahollick]

Generally speaking, those plastic mounts are strong. Any shock severe enough to break the mount is highly likely to cause other damage to the lens. When the rest of the lens barrel is also plastic, the only thing a metal mount is doing is adding weight - or (this is an opinion, not a personal attack) snob appeal.

Metal mounts are no heavier than plastic, in fact, the 18 - 55 WR and the DA L versions weigh in at 8.1oz. each. The 18 - 55 AL II, with metal mount, weighs in at 7.8oz.. I also don't get the "snob appeal" factor, as the mount is unseen when it's on the camera! I've seen plastic mounts broken from falls, never seen a broken metal one. I've banged my lenses (all metal mounts) off countless door frames, trees, walls, etc., as well as a few drops to the floor, ground, pavement, over the years while mounted to my camera and have yet to damage camera OR lens mounts. Not so sure I'd be able to make that same statement if I were using plastic mounts, so to me, a metal mount makes more sense.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong!