Hey Arnold, Ok, fair is fair, here she is.
> >Ok, well, the FA20-35/f4 has solid mechanics then. It has 'high tech' materials. Everyone has said similar, and I've used it. > > > To me that is just marketing prattle. Yes, to you. That should be made clear. > >Cheap and lightweight plastic? HAR. Old-fashioned view. There is nothing cheap about the plastics used nowadays. > > > There is. Metal processing is much more expensive (but more exact) than > the injection moulding used to produce plastic parts. That is why the > cheap lenses are plastic, the expensive ones are not. Especially nowadays. If I skip down to the part where you ask me if I have numbers, metal processing is much more expensive? Do you have numbers? Plastic and cheap are not bound to each other. Whoa! There is a huge hoard of people that would love to take your statement of cheap lenses are plastic and the expensive ones are not and rip it to pieces. I'm not just talking of our simple isolated (yet well-finformed) list here. Open to debate in many ways, but the cheap plastic cheap lens that I have cost more than the expensive better metal one you have. Why? I cannot say. But it's just another fact, right or wrong. > >There's more R&D money in strong plastics than metal. > > > Do you have numbers? That magnesium alloy of the MZ-S was not cheap in > development either, I guess. However, the old metals steel, aluminium, > and brass beat all plastic materials hands down in all respects but one: > weight. Well, first part, refer back up to my other comments based on yours. Your other comments metal vs plastic are pure speculation, there are probably hundreds of industries that would shake their heads at such comments. There is the argument, fact or fallacy, that the big expensive lenses have big expensive higher grade glass, especially in general, at the top. Metal may be a better choice for this, or just an old fashioned tradition. > >Lightweight. I hope so, who wants a heavy lens when you can have the same thing lighter? > > > Because it feels better. I don't fondle my lenses like I do other things that feel better. And feel...well. You put your lens on a tripod, do a landscape shot for example, I mainly feel the camera and tripod, not a fixed lens. Just one example of many, and you could make the same the when handholding the camera, maybe, but even then you may not be touching the lens. > >No balance arguments, not at lenses this size. > > > Why not? I'll refer (defer?) to posts after yours and mine. Length, minimal relative weight differences, etc. > >I guess carbon-tripods are cheap and lightweight too, it's only carbon, not metal, and it's light. No, that arguement doesn't work does it? > > > I cannot comment on carbon tripods as I have only metal ones. And a > heavy tripod is a good thing sometimes, isn't it? Oh no!!!! :) Something I'm in complete agreement on. I looked at both, didn't care at the price difference, and decided I wanted a big black think heavy metal tripod and head. I lug it around everywhere, I just look at it as strength training.
