Teardown: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II

[RogerCicala]

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.

Don't -- BDube works where they test them. Seriously. But you're talking specific purpose hand assembled and tested lenses.

 

[Etienne]

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.

Don't -- BDube works where they test them. Seriously. But you're talking specific purpose hand assembled and tested lenses.

I'd like to see an example of a cinema lens that uses a one-inch-thick steel barrel. Doesn't sound real or necessary to me. That's like armor platting on a tank.

 

[infared]

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.

Don't -- BDube works where they test them. Seriously. But you're talking specific purpose hand assembled and tested lenses.

I'd like to see an example of a cinema lens that uses a one-inch-thick steel barrel. Doesn't sound real or necessary to me. That's like armor platting on a tank.

no..no...Roger is talking about the diameter of the housing, (steel barrel) that holds the ball bearings. Not the actual bearings or the lens housing. Maybe I have it wrong...but I "think" this is what he is talking about:

 

[Etienne]

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.

Don't -- BDube works where they test them. Seriously. But you're talking specific purpose hand assembled and tested lenses.

I'd like to see an example of a cinema lens that uses a one-inch-thick steel barrel. Doesn't sound real or necessary to me. That's like armor platting on a tank.

no..no...Roger is talking about the diameter of the housing that holds the ball bearings. Not the actual bearings or the lens housing. Maybe I have it wrong...but I "think" this is what he is talking about:

ok ... that sounds more believable

 

[Bdube]

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.

Here's some lenses from SPIE Optifab

http://i.imgur.com/76MINqM.jpg

The corning advanced optics is a relatively high speed telecentric lens for machine vision. It is a bit bigger than a 400/2.8, for size reference. The square portion near the end is where it mounts to the camera interface, its dimensions are about 4"x4" and the rear element is only 2" in diameter. This gives about an inch of padding all around.

Here are some big projection optics from Narvitar

http://i.imgur.com/SdzOM7H.jpg

Again you can see the leftmost lens, the barrel is much thicker than the front element. No element inside is larger than the front element. The barrel here is also solid steel.

It is cheaper to mill out less, and they are not concerned with weight.

 

[rfdesigner]

Yes nice lens.

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.

I know everyone else has basically disagreed already.. but if I may I'd like to provide an example:

Miele

In a market place where everyone else offers cheap machines that last no time, miele are doing very nicely. It's called word of mouth... I love our miele products, they just work and work and work and work. With a "heavy duty" family (special needs kids) all our miele stuff is going strong after years of over use.

Miele though do not do business the "corporate way" (next quarter is all) They are a family business and the people running it want it to last at least another generation.

If canon want to charge more for "tank proof" stuff rather than more for features that I'll never use then I'll most likely step up and buy more gear... and then give it light but relatively constant use over many many years.. telling people how great my canon gear is.