Metal or plastic mount?

[versionsix]

Hi all, I walked into John yesterday and they offered me two pieces of information/advice. (i'm rather new to the dslr world. just got a d70)

1) the glass used in lens with a plastic mount can never be better than the glass used in a lens with a metal mount

2) for zooms that go up to 200, tamron and sigma make better lenses than nikon. (ie. 28-200G nikon is not recommended compared to the sigma and tamron equivalent)

could someone enlighten me with regards to the two above statements? (ie, are they true and why?)

cheerios
samuel

 

[espn]

Muahaha... try Cathay la...

 

[versionsix]

so it's not true?

 

[alechim]

in my opinion, it does not matter so long the barrel is non reflective...

 

[mikerfns]

2) for zooms that go up to 200, tamron and sigma make better lenses than nikon. (ie. 28-200G nikon is not recommended compared to the sigma and tamron equivalent)

cheerios
samuel

This statement (pure bull***t btw) is usually made by someone who has a vested interest in selling you Sigma/Tamron lenses.

 

[mikerfns]

Hi all, I walked into John yesterday and they offered me two pieces of information/advice.

1) the glass used in lens with a plastic mount can never be better than the glass used in a lens with a metal mount

Find somewhere else to get your advice. The quality of optical glass in a camera lens has absolutely NOTHING to do with the lens mount material.

These jokers are lying to you. :nono:

 

[drektster]

Well, i think plastic is a cheaper alternative matrerial for a lenses.

if i am buying a low end kind of lenses i would not bother if the mounting is of metal or plastic.

but if the lenses is costing me a bomb. then perhaps a metal mounting is important to me.

i dun want to sent my lens for repair just becos of a boging lining there.

 

[S11loop]

i think this is full of crap .... :bsmilie:

 

[billpepsi]

Did you hear it from Samuel (the boss son)? of his assistant?

Hi all, I walked into John yesterday and they offered me two pieces of information/advice. (i'm rather new to the dslr world. just got a d70)

1) the glass used in lens with a plastic mount can never be better than the glass used in a lens with a metal mount

2) for zooms that go up to 200, tamron and sigma make better lenses than nikon. (ie. 28-200G nikon is not recommended compared to the sigma and tamron equivalent)

could someone enlighten me with regards to the two above statements? (ie, are they true and why?)

cheerios
samuel

 

[versionsix]

i heard it from this slightly plump indian guy, don't know who he is. after all, i'm rather new to the world of dslr and lenses so i didn't dare to shoot back and just quietly walked out. hahahhahaha.... thanks guys for all the TRUE advice. cheers

 

[billpepsi]

i heard it from this slightly plump indian guy, don't know who he is. after all, i'm rather new to the world of dslr and lenses so i didn't dare to shoot back and just quietly walked out. hahahhahaha.... thanks guys for all the TRUE advice. cheers

Only deal with Samuel.

But, which lens do you intend to get? may be the guys here at CS can help you out.

 

[Artosoft]

Not all elements on lenses is made from glass. Sometimes it is made from plastic. Or element made from combination of glass and plastic.

Lenses maker may say it is due to save weight on lens or special purpose of element which can not be achieve by using glass only, which is true sometimes, but of course the hidden agenda is to save cost :bsmilie: .

Regards,
Arto.

 

[yanyewkay]

did you hear them wrongly? it doesn't seem right that they are giving such advices. sometimes when we are tired we only hear parts of a sentences here and there then join them up in our heads.

I think he is trying to say plastic lens elements can never be better than glass is it? then it got linked to plastic elements usually come with plastic mounts? :dunno: i wasn't there.. just guessing.

The mount has totally nothing to do with the lens construction. Though the logic might be right to say that plastic mounts are usually cheap lenses and cheap lenses cannot be good. :dunno:

 

[versionsix]

i'm looking for a zoom that takes me to at least 200mm. i've read on forums here, ken rockwell and dpreview that the 55-200 is not that great whereas the 28-200G reviews have been mostly positive. wasn't that keen on the 70-300 cos 70 seems a bit long for me as a walkaround lens.

So then I was shopping around for the 28-200 and one of the places was john. walked in, asked if they had the lens and they said they don't carry it and wouldn't recommend it cos i should be looking at sigmas and tamrons for that range.

so i mentioned that i heard good things about the lens and that the glass was good for that price then they said but it has a plastic mount, how can that glass compare to the glass in metal mounts?
yeah, so i guess they associated the plastic mount to cheap lenses which is associated with poor glass, like what yanyewkay said.. heh. sorry if this post is a bit drama mama.

now i'm aiming for a not too expensive wide angle. any suggestions?

 

[yanyewkay]

aahh... i see where the interpretation went wrong now...

 

[alechim]

I think what he meant as "glass" is the whole lens itself...it is quite common to describe a lens as glass...

And if what lens you asked, you can get the nikkor 18-200 VR

 

[gadrian]

Hi all, I walked into John yesterday and they offered me two pieces of information/advice. (i'm rather new to the dslr world. just got a d70)

1) the glass used in lens with a plastic mount can never be better than the glass used in a lens with a metal mount

2) for zooms that go up to 200, tamron and sigma make better lenses than nikon. (ie. 28-200G nikon is not recommended compared to the sigma and tamron equivalent)

could someone enlighten me with regards to the two above statements? (ie, are they true and why?)

cheerios
samuel

1) hmm.. the Nikon 28-80 was a pretty good lenses.. and the current 18-55 and 28-200 are good too. I have a 28-200.. and it produces stunning images.

2) cannot totally agree with this statement. BUT.. the Tamron 28-200 XR was a good lens, in comparison to what Nikon had to offer at that time.

 

[longkangman]

Hi all, I walked into John yesterday and they offered me two pieces of information/advice. (i'm rather new to the dslr world. just got a d70)

2) for zooms that go up to 200, tamron and sigma make better lenses than nikon. (ie. 28-200G nikon is not recommended compared to the sigma and tamron equivalent)

LOL, very interesting theory.

Should try the 18-200mm from nikon and compare with the rest you will know the different.

 

[Dennis]

Hahaha best theory of all. So your paper $2 is not worth as much as your plastic $2. :bsmilie:

 

[markccm]

Hahaha best theory of all. So your paper $2 is not worth as much as your plastic $2. :bsmilie:

now that's a thought.
hahaha....

oops.. OT liao, wait tio PM... :sweat: