There are some convincing reviews out there. TDP's ISO charts were the final drop. I think I have to start selling something ... :
Upvote
0
LensRentals.com Tests, and Then Takes Apart the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
BozillaNZ said:
That may be, but it has the best focus and zoom action of any L lens I've ever used.
Upvote
0
raptor3x said:
The focusing throw is sooooo short though I find it's much trickier to exactly nail down manual focus with live view than with the 24-70 II.
Upvote
0
These are the same people who miss glass shampoo bottles, I supposeBozillaNZ said:
. While metal is reassuring and has a nice heft to it, the plastics that Canon uses are top notch and in my experience, very durable.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:These are the same people who miss glass shampoo bottles, I supposeBozillaNZ said:
My one experience with a lens being completely destroyed by a drop was entirely the fault of using plastic for the filter threads. Had they used stainless steel or aluminum, it would have bent a little, and the filter would have shattered, and that's it. Instead, the filter threads shattered, and the lens filter (whose threads were made of metal as they should be) dug into the front glass. The cost of replacing the front glass was more than the lens was worth, so I considered it a complete loss and moved on, but I'm very wary of plastic parts on lenses these days as a result.
At the very least, filter threads on a lens should always be made of metal. Anything else is a hack.
Upvote
0
dgatwood said:
I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree. Lugging around heavier items sucks all the time as insurance for something that doesn't happen so often. I have had one straight drop of my gear in 10 years of shooting with SLRs (and everything was fine anyway).
Provided the weather sealing doesn't suffer and they choose plastics for the long-term that are UV/oxidization resistant, I'll choose lighter weight over a sturdier material every time. I'd love to see even my tank-like 70-200 F/2.8 IS II get the weight reduction treatment if I could.
Now, if I was shooting sports or covering a war zone, the calculus might change. But until then, I'd like to sweat less and shoot in higher comfort.
- A
Upvote
0
BozillaNZ said:
Have a look at this little gem that's been out for over four years:
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/macro-lenses/ef-100mm-f-28l-macro-is-usm?WT.mc_id=C126149
OK, it doesn't have a plastic zoom ring 8)
Upvote
0
I was curious about this, so I looked up a few. Ever-trusty-TDP has this anecdotally listed in some reviews but not in it's handy specifications pull-down, so I had to go to (roll eyes) Ken Rockwell's site for this:
Just for the filter threads...
24-70 F/4L = plastic
24-70 F/2.8L II = plastic
24-105L = plastic
70-200 F/4L IS = plastic
70-200 F/2.8L IS II = metal
70-300L = metal
35L = metal
50L = plastic
85L = metal
100L = plastic
135L = plastic
So it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some wonderful lenses on that list have plastic threads and seem to be doing just fine. But I do understand the confidence metal components can inspire: my old 24-70 F/2.8L I was a pickle jar full of metal, and am fairly certain I could have used it as a hammer.
- A
Just for the filter threads...
24-70 F/4L = plastic
24-70 F/2.8L II = plastic
24-105L = plastic
70-200 F/4L IS = plastic
70-200 F/2.8L IS II = metal
70-300L = metal
35L = metal
50L = plastic
85L = metal
100L = plastic
135L = plastic
So it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some wonderful lenses on that list have plastic threads and seem to be doing just fine. But I do understand the confidence metal components can inspire: my old 24-70 F/2.8L I was a pickle jar full of metal, and am fairly certain I could have used it as a hammer.
- A
Upvote
0
that lens hood actually looks usable!
so if this and the 16-35 2.8 are both full frame why does the 16-35 2.8 have such a ridiculously unusable lens hood.
Looks like a great lens if you can live with f4 max aperture, i'll keep waiting for a new 16-35 f2.8 hopefully with IS too
so if this and the 16-35 2.8 are both full frame why does the 16-35 2.8 have such a ridiculously unusable lens hood.
Looks like a great lens if you can live with f4 max aperture, i'll keep waiting for a new 16-35 f2.8 hopefully with IS too
Upvote
0
Your story of a written off lens is yet another example of why I won't use "protective" filters.
Upvote
0
I'm honestly sick and tried of comments like "were made of metal as they should be" or "should always be made of metal"...
Upvote
0
romanr74 said:
I agree - with a zoom lens if you drop it bad enough that it cracks or damages the plastic it will likely need to be sent in for service to be re-aligned anyway. And metal will dent before good plastic cracks in my experience. Unless the lens design calls for metal due to rigidity purposes (i.e. 70-200) I don't see the issue with plastics.
I don't like plastic on the lens mount, though, because metal camera mount on plastic threads will likely result in plastic shavings/debris in the camera body eventually.
Upvote
0
Ruined said:
At least on this particular lens, that wasn't the case. The lens took about a two foot drop onto asphalt (relatively soft as materials go). The thin threads literally disintegrated into half a dozen splinters of plastic, half a millimeter by a millimeter by an inch long each, give or take, each of which was basically one thread. You could readily snap them in two by using only three fingers and applying a fairly small amount of force. There's probably no way you can make the threads thicker and still be compatible with existing filters, so you're pretty much stuck with something a little thicker than a piece of pencil lead taking the full brunt of the impact.
In spite of the impact, though, I kept using the lens for the remainder of that trip, and it worked approximately as well as did before (it wasn't a great lens to begin with, mind you), except that I couldn't put filters on it anymore, the lens cap kept falling off, and I got glare if the sun hit the scratches just right.
I think it's more a question of luck whether an end impact will cause plastic threads to disintegrate or not. It has less to do with the force of the impact and more to do with the angle of the impact, as to whether the razor-thin threads or the body itself takes most of the hit. That's why I feel that lenses should always use metal threads. In the worst case, metal threads bend and must be replaced. In the worst case, plastic threads shatter, and your front glass must be replaced. And even if it does require a recalibration afterwards, that's still likely to be cheaper than recalibration plus replacing the front glass.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
