I was reading on another forum that: "If you want a good reason not to trade in your older MF Nikkor lenses on modern AF ones, look here. Or, if you are worried about the strength and permanency of the glue bond securing lens elements in some of the newer AF Nikkors, also look here:

"

It looks like the newer Nikkor lens are compromising quality and durability for higher costs apparently. So the question is:

Is Leica maintaining a high level of durability and quality in their lens quality? I was wondering about the durability between M- and R- lenses relative to the screw mounts. Of course, I don't think that Leica uses glue to mount lens elements (or else we would be dead by now) and I remember that my Sigma zoom lens got dropped during an engagement shoot and it broke the 1st time. So much for supposed reliability of lenses nowadays.

Of course, I am willing to bet that Leica is still light years ahead of other camera companies in lens construction and durability? Of course, I probably would suspect that Leica lens have become less durable since the 1950's and 1960's???

Comments are welcome.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 07, 2001

Answers

Sorry the cut and paste didn't work the first time:

"If you want a good reason not to trade in your older MF Nikkor lenses on modern AF ones, look here. Or, if you are worried about the strength and permanency of the glue bond securing lens elements in some of the newer AF Nikkors, also look here: http://photographic.co.nz/cameraworks/cameras/nikkor_24_120/Default.ht m"

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 07, 2001.

AF is a completely different approach to lens construction. They have to be light weight and free spinning to be able to autofocus as quickly as possible. (Notice that I did not say as accurately as possible). They are also designed to be mass-produced with an absolute minimum of parts and at the lowest possible cost. Saying Leica is light years ahead of N/C in lens construction is like saying Rolex is light years ahead of Swatch in watch construction. A non-sequitor.

-- Hil (hegomez@aol.com), December 07, 2001.

I agree. I just think that it's rather sad to see that photographic equipment decline in quality as prices go up. For example, a 35mm- 80mm zoom Nikkor is around 250 bucks new around here. If I went and bought a 50mm Summicron-R I would be paying around 600 bucks new in the box. Obviously I would expect the Nikkor not to last 1/3 of the time that the Summicron-R does. Isn't that sad?

I really think that other camera brands resort to plastic-like construction for lenses and especially for lens mounts. I really believe that Leica is wonderful because they use "hard-core" metal to house the lens elements and it's no wonder that Leica lens lasts a lifetime longer than either N/C. No joke.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 07, 2001.

Alfie: I love Leica construction - but just for the record I recently found out that the pre-ASPH 35mm M-Summicrons use BOTH plastic and glue. And they fail. Which is why some of us have 35s with 'unscrewable' front sections and square lens hoods that don't 'square up' with the bodies.

Some portion of either the lens tube or aperture mechanism is a carbon fiber/resin tube. Since (unlike a metal part) it would crack if simply screwed into place until it's tight - Leica screwed them into position and then glued them there. Sometimes either the fiber/resin part breaks or the glue pops loose under stress - and then the lens tube and aperture section is free to unscrew from the focusing section.

John van Stelten - the repair guy who explained this in detail - says it's only an issue if it becomes really loose. Mine takes a real twist on the lens hood to start traveling, so I haven't worried about it and just realign it by hand if it shifts a little.

It's a 1981 lens. And I have no idea if this particular construction has been used in any other Leica mounts. Some people have mentioned the same 'hood alignment' problem with ASPH 'crons. Similar construction?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 07, 2001.

Damn :(... I just hoping that Leica wasn't using glue or plastic in any of their lens.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 07, 2001.

Can someone explain this in layman's terms, as the front 'tube' of my 50mm summicron tends to become loose occasionally. Is the is bad?

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), December 07, 2001.

Alfie - why don't you compare a f1,8/50mm Nikkor for 150 bucks with a Summicron R for 600 bucks. Or compare a AF Zoom Nikkor with an AF Zoom Leica. There is no AF Zoom Leica? Really? You compare bananas with apples!

-- Paul Sander (pr.sander@gmx.net), December 07, 2001.

Andy - I would maybe do a little more research on what your repair person told you. If your lens is a 1981 version - carbon fibre was truly in its infancy at this time - pretty much a space age material that was used for military and some early Formula 1 applications. I really doubt that it is in a lens of this era.......

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), December 07, 2001.

Alfie,

If you refer to Moose Petersons books on Nikkor lenses, he always points out when a lens is all metal and glass. For example, the "legendary" 80-200 f/2.8 AFD is all glass and metal, as is the 38- 70 f/2.8 AFD and 300 f/4 AF. They're heavy, but I don't trust a Nikkor lens that can't be used for weight training. I recently bought the 80-400 VR-AF which definitely has more plastic than the above-mentioned lenses, so i'm hoping that it will be as good a performer. I love the heft of Leitz lenses. Thanks, Pat

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 07, 2001.

Alfie:

I have 16 Nikon lenses. They are all AI and all work on the F100 and F5. Man am I glad that I didn't start with Canon. ;o)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), December 07, 2001.

Lets wait another twenty years before coming to any conclusions these Nikkor, etc. AF lenses are crap. Of course I like Leica because of performance considerations and workmanship. However in the end camera and lenses are mere tools and they are constructed to get the job done. I don't drive my Rolls to the 7-11 just because it was better made than the Toyota.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), December 07, 2001.

Ray, you are right about the new consumer-level Nikkors. Junk. I bought a 70-300 f/4-5.6 or whatever. Big mistake. I took it back and got the 80-200-2.8. The 70-300 was built like and performed like a toy. I guess I got what I paid for. Now, when I look at write-ups that say "light-weight and compact" I turn the page. Pat

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), December 08, 2001.

Ahem.

I put my Leica M6TTL with heavy brass solid-as-a-rock chrome 50 'cron in the tray of a stroller in April. After pushing for 2 miles over rough pavement, the lens elements assembly had worked loose from the mounting ring of the lens, and lens screws had dropped into the camera body.

I didn't feel particulary blessed right then. In any case, Leica is well engineered, but as we privately know, far from divine.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), December 08, 2001.

Bob: Here's an internal link referencing both materials and glue in pre-ASPH 35 'crons. It mentions 'Kevlar' instead of carbon-fiber, but I think it would still have to be in a resin matrix to be stiff enough as a threaded lens part.

I guess even Kevlar isn't always a sign of 'bulletproof' construction. 8^)

35 'cron construction links.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 08, 2001.

Bob,

Fly rods used for flyfishing were available in carbon-fiber as far back as 1979. It is entirely feasible that many other consumer goods were using the material by 1981. Of course this was the first generation carbon-fiber with a lower modulus than material available today.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), December 08, 2001.

Alfie,

I agree with Pat. The inexpensive, consumer oriented Nikkors do appear less well made than the more expensive metal barreled Nikkors. I have heard that many of the slower speed and variable aperture lenses are assembled in Korea. The higher end constant aperture zooms and AFS lenses are made at the Japan Nikon factory.

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), December 08, 2001.

A year ago my 180 took a 20-foot drop inside a bag loosely filled. I had to replace the mount and aperture ring. Still shooting it- focus is dead-on @ infinty- but I can't vouch for the 24/2.8D and 85/1.8- the construction isn't reassuring.

All of the Leitz glass I've handled is solid, end of story. If and when I own some, I'll expect to take it to the grave.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), December 08, 2001.

Bob,
Around '80 or '81 I attended a presentation with a representative from the Danish Nikon importer. He claimed that the barels of the Nikon Series E lenses were made with carbon fiber when explaining the difference between these cheaper lenses and the Nikkor series.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), December 09, 2001.

I think we should keep things in perspective. Great lens construction never took a great picture.

And, most camera equipment, even (or especially) the heavy all metal stuff, will be destroyed or rendered unusable by simply dropping it the wrong way on the sidewalk.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), December 09, 2001.

well said pete.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), December 10, 2001.

With all that thread, I wonder no more why used lens look so battered.

A camera is a well crafted item, don't mix up with a Caterpillar scraper...

I own an Electronic R7, well crafted and it takes pictures. It is not used everyday of course. All lens and body are protected to a maximum. Did the same with a Pentax P30 but had to replace it for another one, the lens mount showed wear and coupling begun to behave strangely. The second Pentax ant its lens were sold effortless because it was in mint++.

Hopefully, the camera shall last a long time and it's always a pleasure to possess a camera in a nice condition.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.