Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
There was some mention of plastic lens elements... plastic lens elements are not necessarily there because they are less expensive than glass. Some exceptional photographic lenses made by Canon and Nikon have plastic elements. The choice of materials in a high-performance lens is (usually) made to achieve specific goals. Computer lens modeling has revolutionized lens design, allowing (properly designed) plastic elements to equal or even outperform a glass counterpart. Some plastic lens elements are NOT less costly than a glass element either. It's not right to assume a lens with 1 or more plastic elements is not as good as a similar lens with all-glass elements. I'm not saying the 665 lens is better or worse than the same lens with all-glass elements. I'm just saying you can't use plastic alone as a criteria for deciding that any given lens is not as good as I would be with all glass elements. The reality is... a lens with 1 or more plastic elements can be as good as, worse than, or better than the same lens with glass elements. There are just too many design variables to say plastic is always an indicator of lower performance.