Chip Stratton wrote:
> But, to get it to a good price point, they do compromise a bit on
> construction compared to the Zuiko or Leica - on my example the focusing
> helicoid had a tiny bit of slop, and of course the lens body is of
> polycarbonate and not metal (though I understand an earlier Tamron did have
> a metal body).
I'm not convinced that polycarbonate is less desireable in a lens body
than aluminum. I'm fairly certain that it changes dimension less with
temperature than aluminum, for example. It may also have better
dampening than metal, which means that it would absorb vibration better
than metal. It certainly has greater resilience than aluminum. It is
definitely lighter of course.
I maintain that a well engineered lens body made from polycarbonate is
good thing. I have a new Sigma 28/1.8 that has a poly body. While Sigma
generates snickers among many people, the lens appears to me to be well
made.
As usual, it's the proper use of the materials that matters, not the
material itself.
--
"I have a dragon and I'm not afraid to use it!"
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|