Kit lens longevity: Having gone digital recently, I immediately was struck by the cheap kit lens housing. Nothing like my old metal housed glass that still takes photographs today. How...

machia Loc: NJ

Having gone digital recently, I immediately was struck by the cheap kit lens housing. Nothing like my old metal housed glass that still takes photographs today. How long can one expect these "plastic fantastic" lenses to last before there are problems with the lens barrel, assuming normal use of about 4-8 hours a week? Image quality is good. Obviously good glass but the overall lens construction feels like a cheap toy. Surprising considering the price tag.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Most kit zoom lenses are in the $100 to $150 range. And not "glass" as most kit lens optics are actually plastic as well. They are a usually decent first lenses, but you will soon start pricing faster, true glass lenses of various prime or different zoom ranges.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I prefer to buy bodies that don't come with lenses. My kit lenses usually just sit around on shelf somewhere.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Nikonian72 wrote:

Most kit zoom lenses are in the $100 to $150 range. And not "glass" as most kit lens optics are actually plastic as well. They are a usually decent first lenses, but you will soon start pricing faster, true glass lenses of various prime or different zoom ranges.

Nonsense, non-glass elements are usually buried deep within the lens body and now more commonly found in higher end, more expensive lenses, usually to approach apochromaticity.

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

machia wrote:

Having gone digital recently, I immediately was struck by the cheap kit lens housing. Nothing like my old metal housed glass that still takes photographs today. How long can one expect these "plastic fantastic" lenses to last before there are problems with the lens barrel, assuming normal use of about 4-8 hours a week? Image quality is good. Obviously good glass but the overall lens construction feels like a cheap toy. Surprising considering the price tag.

You will find that it comes under 'progress'. Plastic has evolved since the early days and is very good now. I even have a set of precision dial gauge calipers which measure to 0.01mm and are over 30 years old and made of plastic.
I understand that plastic has already made its way into 'pro' lens and cameras and I am sure the trend will continue.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Nikonian72 wrote:

Most kit zoom lenses are in the $100 to $150 range. And not "glass" as most kit lens optics are actually plastic as well. They are a usually decent first lenses, but you will soon start pricing faster, true glass lenses of various prime or different zoom ranges.

Even the plastic elements are in fact made with glass though.

The only plastic is in hybrid aspherical elements, usually one or two elements per lens. A hybrid aspherical is made with a thin plastic aspheric layer molded to a regular glass element. (That is compared to other aspherical elements that are entirely molded glass or ground glass. Each in turn is optically better and dramatically more expensive to produce.)

Most current wide angle consumer lenses use hybrid aspherical elements. But hybrid elements are not exclusive to consumer grade lenses either. The Nikkor AF 14mm f/2.8D ED, currently listed by Nikon at $1,895, has two hybrid aspherical elements, and the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D is listed at $1,935 and has one hybrid element.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I can only speak from my experience with the Canon kit lens. The kit lens (both the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 MK I and MK II models) are fairly durable. At the office we have 6 loaner cameras that community members who are taking photography classes may check out. These cameras and lens go through much rougher treatment than most photographers would allow for their equipment to be treated.

Yes, the kit lens are inexpensively made but they will take a more punishment than you may realize. The picture quality is rather surprising, much better that what you would get from most point and shoots.

machia Loc: NJ

Thank you for the responses. I used the word "glass" knowing that plastic is used in optics today. I was actually referring to the plastic housing, the lens body itself. Unlike the old manual lens metal bodies or even the later heavy plastic bodies, these kit lenses are very light and the gauge on the plastic is very thin . I was wondering with average wear , how long it would take for the focus ring to loosen or zoom ring to get play in it. I'm aware that these could not survive an accidental drop, but it is the wear factor I was curious about. Optical performance is very good in fact, but I'm still amazed how cheaply this lens is made. (Canon 18-55 mm f 3.5.) My lenses from the 1970's are built like trucks and have only cosmetic wear on them. And while I know that a metal barrel would be cost prohibitive in this class of lens, I was at least expecting a much better plastic build. Will this become a paper-weight in 2 years? lol

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Frankly, when I see the images I see out of my little m4/3 lenses like the 45mm f1.8, I could care less that it is mostly plastic.

machia Loc: NJ

Cdouthitt wrote:

Frankly, when I see the images I see out of my little m4/3 lenses like the 45mm f1.8, I could care less that it is mostly plastic.

I could care less too, as the optics are very good, but I was wondering instead how long a cheaply constructed lens body would last with normal wear vs older well made plastic lenses.

machia Loc: NJ

haroldross wrote:

I can only speak from my experience with the Canon... (show quote)

Thank you, you answered my question, much appreciated !

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

machia wrote:

I could care less too, as the optics are very good, but I was wondering instead how long a cheaply constructed lens body would last with normal wear vs older well made plastic lenses.

My 45mm, which is mostly plastic, shows barely any wear. Nice thing about plastic...lightweight.

machia Loc: NJ

Cdouthitt wrote:

My 45mm, which is mostly plastic, shows barely any wear. Nice thing about plastic...lightweight.

Good to know, thanks.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

machia wrote:

Good to know, thanks.

Forgot to mention I got it in January 2013

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

machia wrote:

Having gone digital recently, I immediately was struck by the cheap kit lens housing. Nothing like my old metal housed glass that still takes photographs today. How long can one expect these "plastic fantastic" lenses to last before there are problems with the lens barrel, assuming normal use of about 4-8 hours a week? Image quality is good. Obviously good glass but the overall lens construction feels like a cheap toy. Surprising considering the price tag.

machia, how a lens was built 50 years ago, and how they need to be built today is very different.
Most of that old, solid feel is the fact that a lens today has to have a large hollow barrel in order to house all the electronic circuitry and electric motors and gears to make the AF work. On top of that, half of them have the gyro/accelerator gauges in there as well for IS/VR. And it all needs to move freely and lighting fast, which means that those component parts can't be heavy.
In the old days, all we did was turn a ring, VERY slowly for focus. Today we expect a lens to focus in fractions of a second and also need manual focus over-ride with floating element groups. These are NOT your fathers lenses!!
One of my lenses is 8 inches long and weighs seven pounds!! It has a a three speed focus motor and electronic pre-set focus stops. Do you think it feels cheap? Think again! :lol:
SS