Canon and Nikon lenses

rds · June 27, 2016

I've been told that both Canon and Nikon use plastic lens in their premier lenses. Anybody know for sure?

AzDavid · June 27, 2016

I shoot with Canon and can't comment on Nikon. Canon does make some lenses that include plastic mounts and can perform quite well (Ex: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18.htm). It's my understanding that all the actual lenses are made of glass. Anybody know different?

Ed_Ingold · June 27, 2016

Plastic parts for autofocus and zoom mechanisms, but not lenses. Aspherical elements are molded, but of glass.

Karim Ghantous · June 27, 2016

Some manufacturers definitely use plastic lens elements. It's a fact, but I don't know about specifics.

Hector Javkin · June 27, 2016

Nikon says that they <a href="http://nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/optics/aspherical_lenses_e/index.htm">use plastic in aspherical lens elements for certain lenses</a>. For me, lens focal length(s), aperture, performance, cost, ergonomics, and reliability are the important criteria for selecting a lens.

colin carron · June 27, 2016

Surely the material used should not be a major issue. The significant issues are lens performance and fitness for purpose. If a lens works and lasts well then what it is made of should not in itself be much of a factor. Most modern lenses use a dozen or more elements glued together in groups. The adhesive used is an optically clear, long lasting, shock resistant, non-yellowing, low moisture uptake adhesive so lenses already have a significant non-glass component.

Jochen_S · June 27, 2016

<a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00VXIT">Older thread</a> What would you call a "premier lens"? - Just the extraordinary expensive fast primes like 85mm f1.2? Or already f2.8 zooms? - Or is the term limited to moderately fast ultra sharp lenses corrected even into parts of the nonvisible spectrum?

JDMvW · June 27, 2016

I've been told that both Canon and Nikon use plastic lens in their premier lenses.

</blockquote>

Usually this is told about the one by someone selling the other.

Colin has it altogether. See also (<a href="

).

Of course the very finest lenses use only "Optical Glass":<div></div>

Landrum Kelly · June 27, 2016

Nikon does not say on its website precisely which lenses meet the following criteria:

Hybrid aspherical lenses This method is used to fabricate hybrid aspherical lenses combining glass and plastic. UV-curable resin is injected between the spherical glass and the aspherical metal mold, and irradiated with UV to form a glass-resin hybrid aspherical lens. Nikon possesses the technology for each key factor, including materials, fabrication and measurement.

<a href="http://nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/optics/aspherical_lenses_e/index.htm">(http://nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/optics/aspherical_lenses_e/index.htm)</a>

</blockquote>

The above describes a third category. The first category is "high precision" and the second category is "precision." This third category does not even claim "precision," much less "high precision."

I for one would like to know precisely which Nikon lenses fall under each category. It is a mistake to think that plastic elements are of the same quality as either ground glass ("high precision") or molded glass ("precision") elements. One reason for this is that plastics are polymers which are not necessarily stable. As the polymers break down (which they will with time), lenses can be discolored, affecting not only color accuracy but transmission of light. Other changes can result from the degradation of polymers. These polymers are labeled by Nikon as "resins." (Keep in mind that "fiberglass resin" is polyester. "Resin" sounds better than "plastic," but in this context plastic is precisely what the resin is.

I wonder how one can go about getting information from Nikon as to which lenses fit into the three categories shown at the link above. These are not trivial matters, and those of us who are paying good money for Nikon "glass" have to know precisely what kind of "glass" we are getting. If the "glass" is plastic, then I want to know about it, regardless of how many elements might be of plastic.

With all due respect to Colin, it could matter a great deal over the lifetime of the lens, if not from the outset.

(The link cited here is the same link given by Hector Javkin earlier in the thread.)

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · June 27, 2016

These are not trivial matters, and those of us who are paying good money for Nikon "glass" have to know precisely what kind of "glass" we are getting.

</blockquote>

I meant to write, "These are not trivial matters, and those of us who are paying good money for Nikon 'glass' have a right to know precisely what kind of 'glass' we are getting."

Otherwise, don't call it "Nikon glass." We are not talking here merely about whether polycarbonate plastic is used in the body of a camera or in the barrel of a lens. We are talking whether the "glass" really is glass.

I wonder what the practice is with Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus (Zuiko) and other lens manufacturers.

--Lannie

Ed_Ingold · June 27, 2016

There is no "right" to know the details of proprietary materials and processes owned by private companies, nor those of the government where national security is involved.

Few, if any, aspheric lens elements are made by grinding. The only Nikon lens of which I'm aware was the 20-35/2.8 lens of the late 90's. I am more confident in the optical quality of a hybrid glass/polymer assembly than that of a molded (or heated and bent) glass lens. Among other things, an hybrid lens is less likely to have internal stress, which produces birefringence and possible shape-shifting with age.

A lot of hoopla surrounded so-called "diffraction" elements to produce smaller, lighter lenses. I don't think they became widely popular, although they met certain needs and budgets. That's the key. Do these lenses meet your optical or other requirements? What are the drawbacks, if any?

Landrum Kelly · June 27, 2016

There is no "right" to know the details of proprietary materials and processes owned by private companies, nor those of the government where national security is involved.

</blockquote>

Nikon gave us the details noted on the link, but not the ability to know which design is used in which lens.

Why tout the "high precision" and "precision" lenses over the implicitly non-precision glass-plastic hybrids if Nikon is not going to tell us which are which?!

We can, if Nikon wishes, start talking about the great qualities of Nikon non-glass--if indeed that is indeed what it is.

GREAT NIKON NON-GLASS! BUY IT, UNWARY CONSUMERS! WE ARE NIKON THE GREAT! WHY DON'T YOU SMART-ALECKY CONSUMERS JUST GUESS WHICH LENSES ARE GLASS AND WHICH ARE PLASTIC?! YES, OUR GREAT NON-GLASS IS VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT WE KNOW THAT WE CAN COUNT ON OUR REPUTATION AND YOUR CONTINUING IGNORANCE. WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU ANYWAY! WE ARE COASTING ON OUR REPUTATION AND YOU KNOW IT, BUT THE MIGHTY NIKON CANNOT EVER GO DOWN!

I think that that sounds like an extraordinarily promising marketing strategy, Edward, as Nikon slips to number three and beyond.

Rights? Faced with rising prices, consumers can also exercise their right to buy Canon, Sony, etc. and walk away from Nikon forever.

Full disclosure: I shoot mostly Nikon, but I have also shot a lot of Canon and some Sony. I'm flexible. I have NO, I mean ZERO, brand loyalty. It doesn't matter to Nikon what I do with my dwindling resources, but it might matter if an upcoming generation demands of Nikon that it explain and defend its high prices.

Nikon mystique? Among whom? Which demographic?

--Lannie

User_6502147 · June 27, 2016

Colin is correct.......and JDM illustrated my point precisely :>).

Les

Landrum Kelly · June 27, 2016

I meant to say, "Come buy our pig in a poke."

--Lannie

Richard Williams · June 28, 2016

If you're worried about plastic elements, why aren't you worried about the polymers used as lens cement? Cemented elements are very common, and sometimes the cement does go bad over time (e.g. 'balsam separation').

Bill C · June 28, 2016

[Lannie] "We are talking whether the "glass" really is glass.

I wonder what the practice is with Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus (Zuiko) and other lens manufacturers."

Hi, Canon describes a few technologies in in their book "Lens Work III" which can be found online. See chapter 9, part 16. Here's a short

section, "The actual DO [the diffractive optical element] is made up of a spherical glass lens and a diffraction lattice formed in a mold using

a special plastic on the surface." They say the first model to incorporate this was the "EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM." It takes a certain amount

of understanding of optical design to understand what they're saying, but you might want to give it a try. For zoom lenses, they said they

had to develop a triple-layered DO lens, "first applied in the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens." I have no idea how the plastic parts will

hold up over very long periods of time, but certainly these are not in the low-performance lens class.

A number of their lens make-ups are described in chapters 3, 4, and 5.

I'd agree that the buyer has no "right to know," but DOES have the right to take their business elsewhere. At the chain outfit where I came

from, we'd be more interested in details of the warranty service on lenses, then details after warranty. Then we'd do limited field trials before scaling up. But at the same time, if the provider was not forthcoming on technical details we wanted to know, well...I dunno; we seldom ran into that issue on major purchases. At any rate, a regular photographer doesn't generally have much leverage with the manufacturer, so the only choice may be to walk away, or not. But it doesn't hurt to try talking to them, if their tech support lines don't know, ask if someone more knowledgeable might call you back.

Landrum Kelly · June 28, 2016

Guys, I am simply saying that it is very unlikely that Nikon would place three categories of lenses on <a href="http://nikon.com/about/technology/rd/core/optics/aspherical_lenses_e/index.htm">their site linked above</a>, only to wind up producing modern high-end lenses only in the third and lowest category.

The distance that light has to go through in coatings and in "glue" between elements is not great compared to how far it would have to travel through entire elements made of plastic. I am sure that plastic lenses work quite well, especially for consumer-grade applications. I rather doubt that the best lenses have significant amounts of plastic that light would have to travel through--but of course I could be wrong.

In any case, I certainly am not aware of any developments in polymer chemistry that would give plastics with the same transmissibility and durability as high-end glass. (Then again, what do I know?) Polymers would, of course, be lighter in weight.

I am quite sure that Canon as well as Nikon uses polymers as adhesives and for coatings in high-end lenses. The question I am left with is what percentage of the distance that light traveling through high-end lenses is through polymers rather than actual glass. Polyesters, polyamides, aramids, polycarbonates, etc.? Those do not sound promising, but of course there may be and no doubt are others. But polymers with extraordinary optical properties matching those of glass? Again, I have not heard about such, but I do know how lame that sounds.

If polymers are being created that can match glass in their optical properties (a big "if" for me), I would think that we would have heard about them from the actual manufacturers of such polymers. That is my way of saying that I doubt that Nikon and Canon et al. are among the world leaders now in new polymer chemistry. They must be buying whatever they are using from some other source(s).

Even Sony is not likely to be making great advances in polymer chemistry. As innovative as Sony is in electronics, polymer chemistry is another whole world. If the best lens makers are using polymers for entire elements in high-end applications, they surely are getting them from some other source. I simply am not hearing about such developments--but again that means nothing, since my field has never been polymer chemistry.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · June 28, 2016

I did find the links below when I Googled "plastic optics":

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · June 28, 2016

Canon describes a few technologies in in their book "Lens Work III" which can be found online. See chapter 9, part 16.

</blockquote>

Thanks, Bill. This is indeed interesting reading. I'm not seeing anything about entire elements made of plastic in Canon's high-end lenses:

<a href="http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_9_EN.pdf">http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_9_EN.pdf</a>

--Lannie

rds · June 29, 2016

I want to thank all of you for the information and feedback to my question. Robert

Landrum Kelly · June 29, 2016

KR has it nailed as far as I am concerned about Canon policy regarding glass, as noted in KR's endorsement of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II:

This little lens is Canon's biggest secret.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 II has fantastically good optics, better than Canon's "L" series wide lenses like the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-ii.htm">16-35mm f/2.8 L II</a>.

In fact, this $125 plastic lens gives sharper results than the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f14.htm">50mm f/1.4 USM</a> I've used, especially in no light. The f/1.4 is soft at f/1.4, and worse, I rarely get in-focus results with it, while this f/1.8 lens is sharp at f/1.8, and always delivers perfect in-focus results!

The 50mm f/1.8 II weighs less, costs less, and autofocuses more accurately than the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f14.htm">50mm f/1.4 USM</a>.

Try to hate this plastic-mount made-in-Malaysia 50mm f/1.8 II, but when you look at the images, you'll be convinced. The mount is plastic, but the glass is all Canon's finest multicoated glass.

</blockquote>

Please note that last sentence: "The mount is plastic, but the glass is all Canon's finest multicoated glass."

If that is true for the "lowly" 50 1.8 II, surely we can rest assured that in Canon' top-end lenses there is no plastic in the optical pathway apart from cement/adhesive and coatings--both of which are quite thin.

I have no reason to believe that Nikon's policy is any different. Everything that I read on Nikon's site indicates that plastic (or "resin") elements are used only for some compacts and lower end applications.

Does it matter? For the record, you bet it does!

I have been playing with optics since I was a kid in Akron, Ohio, where my father worked for Goodyear Aircraft. I was an amateur astronomer for many years before becoming a photographer. It would be a travesty for me to find out that our "glass" really is not glass at all. Glass elements, on the other hand, have always been glued together with polymers. There apparently is no alternative to that use of polymers.

Lens coatings? Coatings are now made of polymers which do not support fungi. We should be glad that there are non-fungi supporting polymers being used for coatings--we really don't want fungi thriving by eating some of the organic-based coatings of the past! Fungi can grow just about anywhere, but at least they cannot be feasting on the contemporary coatings themselves. (They can, however, grow on dust that accumulates on internals surfaces, if that dust is made of organic edible materials. Zooms remain and will always remain particularly vulnerable to dust, since they can suck air in and out.)

Again, contemporary coatings and adhesive layers are very thin. They do not interfere with optical quality--not now. It was not always so. We should be glad for these new technological developments, and the glass remains, yes, glass in the lenses that we cherish the most.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · June 29, 2016

Thanks for the opportunity to thrash out these issues, Robert.

--Lannie

Glenn McCreery · June 30, 2016

It is difficult to find information on how specific lens manufacturers fabricate aspherical elements. However, I found this revealing interview with Sony's top lens designer, http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/02/04/sony-raises-the-bar-we-talk-with-sonys-top-lens-designer-about-what-makes-t According to the interview, Sony, like others makes aspherical elements by a molding process, whereby heated glass blanks are pressed against tungsten molds. The heat-softened glass deforms to take the shape of the mold. One of several problem that he discusses is that the molds tend to make small ridges on the molded lenses that result in unattractive "onion ring bokeh". Sony addresses this problem by building micro-machining mold making tools that reduce surface roughness to only 0.01 microns. However, he does not discuss any of the potential problems with glass molding that Edward brings up. At the end of the interview he discusses new software for analysis and design for bokeh, something that previously required the expensive process of building and testing prototype lenses.

Landrum Kelly · June 30, 2016

Thanks for that, Glenn.

Lenses produced from such molds have a surface roughness of only 0.01 microns. That's a factor of 2 or 3 better than current technology used by the rest of the industry. Because they are so incredibly smooth right out of the micro-lathe machine, it's a much more production-oriented process than the manual polishing approach Panasonic developed. This should translate into lower production costs, and ultimately, more Sony lenses at modest price points able to take advantage of the technology.

</blockquote>

Holy cow! If they are still getting "onion ring bokeh" with ridges no bigger than 0.01 microns, it is hard to see how they can do much better!

I haven't (for the record) heard anyone talking about Sony using entire plastic elements in FE or E lenses. Somebody let me know if I'm wrong on that. For the record, I haven't heard anyone from Canon or Nikon say that their better/best lenses contain entire elements made of plastic, either.

--Lannie

Glenn McCreery · June 30, 2016

Lannie- I think that what he is saying is that Sony can reduce or eliminate onion ring bokah by reducing mold tolerances to 0.01 micron. I would hope so, since the wavelength range of visible light is approximately 0.4 to 0.7 microns! Of course, the tolerances of the lens itself will be larger than those of the mold due to thermal expansion, etc.

I wonder, since Sony collaborates with Zeiss on lens design/production, if Zeiss also uses molded glass aspherical lenses?

Sign In

Canon and Nikon lenses

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in