[Brightcolours]

Borisbg, most of that is inflation and exchange rates.

[davidmanze]

Dave, if the AF is as good as on your 150-600 the new version of 70-200 looks very promising. It costs almost half of what Nikon wants for theirs.

I am not sure what exactly affected the optical industry, but I don't understand the price increments with each iteration of Nikon  products:

70-200 version 1 - $1,600

70-200 version 2 - $2,300

70-300 version 3 - $2.800

 There's no doubt if there are no slip ups this lens is going to be one huge hit for Tamron, the Nikor is just too expensive, while the Tamron is endearingly priced!

[davidmanze]

here I don't agree in general. There are lenses, like most Fujinons, coming in a solid metal look and containing a massive amount of plastic parts. And there are plastics and plastics. I don't know exactly the plastic type of Nikon, but the recycling symbol should give an "8" inside the symbol ♺ Actually, they are all marked a 10. I guess, but am not sure, it's a plastic called PEEK (in Switzerland). Polyethereteketone. Something used for valves, insulation-parts and other high-tech shit.

 

But then, as most of Nikon's lenses are built in China, we might look to the Chinese plastic code table. Here PEEK is No. 68 and No. 10 is ACS - wich I never heard of before, but there are literally 100s of this codes. And as it's a modified ABS, I'd be fine with using it for an outer lens shell. It's more pleasing to touch in cold temperatures than metal.

 

It's only stupid - and Nikon goes the full length of stupidity here - to design a shell with thin walls and try to attach a tripod collar. And the tripod collar has a layer of velvet inside so you can sell the lens without a scratch after you wondered enough why the tripod based pictures always get blurred... This tripod collar, the lousy microphone, the poorly designed and steeply priced battery-grips are my favourite reasons to rant about greedy Nikon...

 

Also, the shell isn't that important. Often it's the mount. After reading Roger's blogpost about plastic mounts (the hidden ones) you probably recognize: Metal is not the cure against everything 

 Well whatever, I think the Tammy G2 benefits from being metal clad, already quite feat at it's price point. Most metal lenses have rubber zoom rings or large focusing rings preventing serious frost bite.  :o

[JJ_SO]

So sorry, I forgot the conclusion for the elderly amongst us  : Given the prices for raw-materials, for the manufacturing of very precise moulds and the machinery producing high-tech plastics, given all that, metal is the cheap version and plastic the expensive which saves a lot of weight. It's an old and from the beginning of plastic age coming idea, that plastic quality per se is never up to that of metal. I'm not entirely disagreeing with that, it just depends. And the manufacturers learnt "you can cram the cheapest plastic parts into a nicely looking metal shell and some most people will defend them til the death"  ^_^

 

Nikon 300/4 PF E: 755 grams

Nikon 300/4 IF ED: 1440 grams

Olympus 300/4: 1270 grams (and not even made for FF...)

 

It says something that the weights for bodybuilders are made of metal, not of plastics 

 

"Most metal lenses"... I own 5 with metal focus rings  but then, the body to use them is only specified to -10° which is just a bit fresh.

[davidmanze]

Very nice that Tamron made that simple design decision, and see that they are picking themselves up too. Is the foot lens wobble free too?

 More solid than the rock of Gibraltar!  :wacko:

[davidmanze]

So sorry, I forgot the conclusion for the elderly amongst us  : Given the prices for raw-materials, for the manufacturing of very precise moulds and the machinery producing high-tech plastics, given all that, metal is the cheap version and plastic the expensive which saves a lot of weight. It's an old and from the beginning of plastic age coming idea, that plastic quality per se is never up to that of metal. I'm not entirely disagreeing with that, it just depends. And the manufacturers learnt "you can cram the cheapest plastic parts into a nicely looking metal shell and some most people will defend them til the death"  ^_^

 

Nikon 300/4 PF E: 755 grams

Nikon 300/4 IF ED: 1440 grams

Olympus 300/4: 1270 grams (and not even made for FF...)

 

It says something that the weights for bodybuilders are made of metal, not of plastics 

 

"Most metal lenses"... I own 5 with metal focus rings  but then, the body to use them is only specified to -10° which is just a bit fresh.

  Your right JoJu the very best lenses are made of expanded polystyrene and used by photographers with scrawny arms! 

[JJ_SO]

 However Tamron does charge an arm and a leg for their "Tapin" console (USB Dock) and their tele-converters!

 

And reading their FAQs, the 2× converter can only be used in manual focus on Nikon? At least, on all Nikons

 

Well, this 1.4× TC better is an optical miracle and also better than cropping a bit by regaining some ISO. And it's made of metal! Dave! Jump on it! 

[JJ_SO]

  Your right JoJu the very best lenses are made of expanded polystyrene and used by photographers with scrawny arms! 

 

'course. The other photogs are frozen on their metal tubes...

 

Polystyrol (to put it for the Non-French) is a real cheap plastic, widely spread, hard to digest by nature. Even you were not born when they invented it.