Pentax DA 50mm f1.8 lens Available at Amazon

Edgar_in_Indy · 07-19-2012, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Kona

Nobody has answered my earlier question as to what exactly is wrong with plastic mounts. I really don't get it, and somebody needs to explain the hate.

The biggest disadvantage is that they don't look as cool. They also may not make as satisfying a 'click' as metal mounts when snapping the lens into place. But on the upside, they won't cause surface scratches on your camera's lens mount.

On a large or heavy lens (like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 'Bigma') that puts a lot of force on the mount when the lens is hanging in space, I expect that a metal mount may offer some structural advantage, but for a small/light lens it's probably not an issue.

ENicolas · 07-19-2012, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Kona

Nobody has answered my earlier question as to what exactly is wrong with plastic mounts. I really don't get it, and somebody needs to explain the hate.

They break. Also plastic mounts don't have the ability to manual focus when the camera is set to AF.S or AF.C - you have to actually switch the camera to MF to turn the focus ring. They are generally all-around of poorer construction than metal mounts, although the same optics.

Edgar_in_Indy · 07-19-2012, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by ENicolas

Also plastic mounts don't have the ability to manual focus when the camera is set to AF.S or AF.C - you have to actually switch the camera to MF to turn the focus ring.

Umm...I don't think that actually has anything to do with the material the mount is made from.

Docrwm · 07-19-2012, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by ENicolas

They break. Also plastic mounts don't have the ability to manual focus when the camera is set to AF.S or AF.C - you have to actually switch the camera to MF to turn the focus ring. They are generally all-around of poorer construction than metal mounts, although the same optics.

Wow. First, its the quick shift that allows the focusing when not in MF on the camera and that is at the other end of the lens.

Second, just where are the reports of the plastic lens mounts used in modern Pentax lenses breaking?

Third, all-around poorer construction? Really, and just what is the failure rate of the DAL 18-55, DAL 50-200, DAL 55-300, and the DA35/2.4? Now, take those numbers and compare them to metal mounted highest priced lenses offered by Pentax, oh say the SDM Zooms. Now, which has the higher failure rate? Which are more poorly constructed?

Wow.

Last edited by Docrwm; 07-19-2012 at 08:09 PM.

**Ash** · 07-19-2012, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

I certainly am hoping you are right! If the 35/2.4 were all metal with the same optics (which are what really matter) people would rave about it. I'd love to see them do an 18mm like the 35 too.

A metal build is available now: 35 ltd

As for DAL lenses breaking: yeah, if they're dropped a few times, from a >3m height or so, sure, they would before metal mount lenses do, but I wouldn't expect that most people are into extreme photography in austere conditions where such durability is a must...

Docrwm · 07-19-2012, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Ash

A metal build is available now: 35 ltd

.

Oh, right, the SLOWER version of the lens.

**Ash** · 07-19-2012, 08:10 PM

Slower by about half a stop... little to worry about there. The 35 ltd is also a macro, though.

Docrwm · 07-19-2012, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Slower by about half a stop... little to worry about there. The 35 ltd is also a macro, though.

Slower but Macro, seems a wash to me - so it sells for about the same as the 35/2.4 - right?

**Ash** · 07-19-2012, 08:21 PM

Clearly not, but also clearly it is built like a tank with awesome IQ and is a lens to last forever like the other Limiteds...
That's how I like to see lenses anyway...

ENicolas · 07-19-2012, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Wow. First, its the quick shift that allows the focusing when not in MF on the camera and that is at the other end of the lens. Second, just where are the reports of the plastic lens mounts used in modern Pentax lenses breaking? Third, all-around poorer construction? Really, and just what is the failure rate of the DAL 18-55, DAL 50-200, DAL 55-300, and the DA35/2.4? Now, take those numbers and compare them to metal mounted highest priced lenses offered by Pentax, oh say the SDM Zooms. Now, which has the higher failure rate? Which are more poorly constructed? Wow.

Well, I have to admit I don't own them all - in fact I don't own any plastic mount lenses. I'm just going by forum posts I've read, product reviews, and as far as quick-shift goes, Pentax's own product descriptions. Breakage may not be a huge problem with this short lens, but it definitely is with the 55-300mm DA-L zoom - you can read about that in user reviews on Amazon and other sites.

Sorry I don't have any rigorous statistics to share - I tend to just go by what I read, what other people say, etc. - you know, the same stuff most people go by in day-to-day real life.

Edgar_in_Indy · 07-19-2012, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Ash

A metal build is available now: 35 ltd

As for DAL lenses breaking: yeah, if they're dropped a few times, from a >3m height or so, sure, they would before metal mount lenses do

Plastic would break, metal would dent, but in reality if either lens was impacted hard enough to break/dent, then it's not going to be good for the lens.

ENicolas · 07-19-2012, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

Umm...I don't think that actually has anything to do with the material the mount is made from.

Nope - just seems to be what Pentax does with them going by their own product descriptions and reviews.

**Ash** · 07-19-2012, 08:31 PM

You know that what you read on fora like this doesn't accurately reflect the reality. You'll always get selection bias and have users who report failures actively posting to say how their gear failed. This will happen whether the gear was misused, abused, or otherwise. The plastic mounts are fine. The DAL lenses are so much lighter you might think that they're prone to failures or are cheaper in optical quality, but Pentax are known to make good gear that is small, light as well as durable and optically brilliant. FA and DA limiteds are testament to this.

JinDesu · 07-19-2012, 08:35 PM

Plastic mount breaks, hah.

My friend dropped my k-x with the DA 35 F2.4 from above head height (i.e. about 6') to a marble floor. Both are fine.

If he didn't look so sorry, the most damaged thing in that room would have been him, but alas, since the camera and lens were fine...

Alizarine · 07-19-2012, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Ash

You'll always get selection bias and have users who report failures actively posting to say how their gear failed. This will happen whether the gear was misused, abused, or otherwise. The plastic mounts are fine. The DAL lenses are so much lighter you might think that they're prone to failures or are cheaper in optical quality, but Pentax are known to make good gear that is small, light as well as durable and optically brilliant.

I agree to this!

Originally posted by JinDesu

My friend dropped my k-x with the DA 35 F2.4 from above head height (i.e. about 6') to a marble floor. Both are fine.

If I fell (and landed flat, not with my feet) from that height, I would've had a few broken bones.
Plastic K-x and plastic mount lens= tougher than my own body... or in that case at least

Sure it's plastic, but it's not as brittle as some may think.

but in any case, accidents happen, and one does not simply drop his lenses anyway, so if it makes the photography experience easier (weight issues, how long can I handle my K-x with the DA 35 f2.4? Hours on end!) I guess it's fine.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for Pentax - $549.99 at Amazon.com	ahw	Pentax Price Watch	9	02-28-2012 03:32 PM
Amazon 1 day lens sale - No Pentax Mounts	interested_observer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	12-21-2011 03:15 PM
For Sale - Sold: RARE PENTAX LENS k 28MM F2, k 50MM F1.2 FA 35MM F2, FA 50MM Macro, Pouc (Worl	rajubhai55	Sold Items	11	06-21-2011 03:27 PM
FA 50mm F1.4 $699 on Amazon..What the Crud??	68wSteve	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	08-30-2009 04:52 PM
FA 50mm f/1.4, down to $169.99 via Amazon	deadwolfbones	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	02-06-2009 12:12 PM

07-19-2012, 06:46 PM	#61
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by Kona Nobody has answered my earlier question as to what exactly is wrong with plastic mounts. I really don't get it, and somebody needs to explain the hate. The biggest disadvantage is that they don't look as cool. They also may not make as satisfying a 'click' as metal mounts when snapping the lens into place. But on the upside, they won't cause surface scratches on your camera's lens mount. On a large or heavy lens (like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 'Bigma') that puts a lot of force on the mount when the lens is hanging in space, I expect that a metal mount may offer some structural advantage, but for a small/light lens it's probably not an issue.

07-19-2012, 07:19 PM	#62
ENicolas Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Northern California Posts: 137	Originally posted by Kona Nobody has answered my earlier question as to what exactly is wrong with plastic mounts. I really don't get it, and somebody needs to explain the hate. They break. Also plastic mounts don't have the ability to manual focus when the camera is set to AF.S or AF.C - you have to actually switch the camera to MF to turn the focus ring. They are generally all-around of poorer construction than metal mounts, although the same optics.

07-19-2012, 07:32 PM	#63
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by ENicolas Also plastic mounts don't have the ability to manual focus when the camera is set to AF.S or AF.C - you have to actually switch the camera to MF to turn the focus ring. Umm...I don't think that actually has anything to do with the material the mount is made from.

07-19-2012, 07:59 PM	#64
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by ENicolas They break. Also plastic mounts don't have the ability to manual focus when the camera is set to AF.S or AF.C - you have to actually switch the camera to MF to turn the focus ring. They are generally all-around of poorer construction than metal mounts, although the same optics. Wow. First, its the quick shift that allows the focusing when not in MF on the camera and that is at the other end of the lens. Second, just where are the reports of the plastic lens mounts used in modern Pentax lenses breaking? Third, all-around poorer construction? Really, and just what is the failure rate of the DAL 18-55, DAL 50-200, DAL 55-300, and the DA35/2.4? Now, take those numbers and compare them to metal mounted highest priced lenses offered by Pentax, oh say the SDM Zooms. Now, which has the higher failure rate? Which are more poorly constructed? Wow. Last edited by Docrwm; 07-19-2012 at 08:09 PM.

07-19-2012, 08:04 PM	#65
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Docrwm I certainly am hoping you are right! If the 35/2.4 were all metal with the same optics (which are what really matter) people would rave about it. I'd love to see them do an 18mm like the 35 too. A metal build is available now: 35 ltd As for DAL lenses breaking: yeah, if they're dropped a few times, from a >3m height or so, sure, they would before metal mount lenses do, but I wouldn't expect that most people are into extreme photography in austere conditions where such durability is a must...

07-19-2012, 08:08 PM	#66
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash A metal build is available now: 35 ltd . Oh, right, the SLOWER version of the lens.

07-19-2012, 08:10 PM	#67
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Slower by about half a stop... little to worry about there. The 35 ltd is also a macro, though.

07-19-2012, 08:12 PM	#68
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash Slower by about half a stop... little to worry about there. The 35 ltd is also a macro, though. Slower but Macro, seems a wash to me - so it sells for about the same as the 35/2.4 - right?

07-19-2012, 08:21 PM	#69
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Clearly not, but also clearly it is built like a tank with awesome IQ and is a lens to last forever like the other Limiteds... That's how I like to see lenses anyway...

07-19-2012, 08:22 PM	#70
ENicolas Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Northern California Posts: 137	Originally posted by Docrwm Wow. First, its the quick shift that allows the focusing when not in MF on the camera and that is at the other end of the lens. Second, just where are the reports of the plastic lens mounts used in modern Pentax lenses breaking? Third, all-around poorer construction? Really, and just what is the failure rate of the DAL 18-55, DAL 50-200, DAL 55-300, and the DA35/2.4? Now, take those numbers and compare them to metal mounted highest priced lenses offered by Pentax, oh say the SDM Zooms. Now, which has the higher failure rate? Which are more poorly constructed? Wow. Well, I have to admit I don't own them all - in fact I don't own any plastic mount lenses. I'm just going by forum posts I've read, product reviews, and as far as quick-shift goes, Pentax's own product descriptions. Breakage may not be a huge problem with this short lens, but it definitely is with the 55-300mm DA-L zoom - you can read about that in user reviews on Amazon and other sites. Sorry I don't have any rigorous statistics to share - I tend to just go by what I read, what other people say, etc. - you know, the same stuff most people go by in day-to-day real life.

07-19-2012, 08:22 PM	#71
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by Ash A metal build is available now: 35 ltd As for DAL lenses breaking: yeah, if they're dropped a few times, from a >3m height or so, sure, they would before metal mount lenses do Plastic would break, metal would dent, but in reality if either lens was impacted hard enough to break/dent, then it's not going to be good for the lens.

07-19-2012, 08:23 PM	#72
ENicolas Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Northern California Posts: 137	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Umm...I don't think that actually has anything to do with the material the mount is made from. Nope - just seems to be what Pentax does with them going by their own product descriptions and reviews.

07-19-2012, 08:31 PM	#73
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	You know that what you read on fora like this doesn't accurately reflect the reality. You'll always get selection bias and have users who report failures actively posting to say how their gear failed. This will happen whether the gear was misused, abused, or otherwise. The plastic mounts are fine. The DAL lenses are so much lighter you might think that they're prone to failures or are cheaper in optical quality, but Pentax are known to make good gear that is small, light as well as durable and optically brilliant. FA and DA limiteds are testament to this.

07-19-2012, 08:35 PM	#74
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Plastic mount breaks, hah. My friend dropped my k-x with the DA 35 F2.4 from above head height (i.e. about 6') to a marble floor. Both are fine. If he didn't look so sorry, the most damaged thing in that room would have been him, but alas, since the camera and lens were fine...

07-19-2012, 10:28 PM	#75
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Ash You'll always get selection bias and have users who report failures actively posting to say how their gear failed. This will happen whether the gear was misused, abused, or otherwise. The plastic mounts are fine. The DAL lenses are so much lighter you might think that they're prone to failures or are cheaper in optical quality, but Pentax are known to make good gear that is small, light as well as durable and optically brilliant. I agree to this! Originally posted by JinDesu My friend dropped my k-x with the DA 35 F2.4 from above head height (i.e. about 6') to a marble floor. Both are fine. If I fell (and landed flat, not with my feet) from that height, I would've had a few broken bones. Plastic K-x and plastic mount lens= tougher than my own body... or in that case at least Sure it's plastic, but it's not as brittle as some may think. but in any case, accidents happen, and one does not simply drop his lenses anyway, so if it makes the photography experience easier (weight issues, how long can I handle my K-x with the DA 35 f2.4? Hours on end!) I guess it's fine.