What do you think of composite bodied lenses?

jimmyboy

Not sure about manufacturing lenses out of composites. Specialty long lenses 300mm to 800mm. Carbon fiber?
Maybe. To much movement on composites in direct sun light?

DaveyJ

We use composites like Carbon Fiber for a lot of high tech builds. They are lighter, very strong, and durable. The military has used them for years. Look at the drone applications which is the leading electronics market share. Quadcopters can do some amazing stuff. The verdict is in on composites.....Nikon needs to lighten it's lenses. Is this appropriate to lens construction? Nikon already knows the answer.....

jimmyboy

Yes I'm sure Nikon already looked in to this.

haroldp

Th right Composites have better thermal dimensional stability than metals, and are stiffer as well. That is why they are used on match rifle stocks and the best / latest airframes.

Metals are still best or the mount due to greater hardness and wear resistance.

.. H

Ironheart

Coefficient of expansion:
Aluminum = 23
Steel = 12
Glass = 12
Carbon Fiber = 2
True composites, whether they have carbon fiber or not, can be tuned to whatever the manufacturer needs for a particular application.

tektrader

Fact ! I used to think metal construction was better for lenses............

Go forward 12 months and a European trip.

I bought a Sigma 35 ART and a Nikon 85mm F1.8 as a pair from Gumtree used. The Damn SIGMA is ridiculously heavy and over built. I carted that stupid lens around Europe and used it the grand total of twice.

The Nikon 85mm Was used a LOT and in retrospect was solely due to weight as the Sigma got left behind at the hotel.

Forward a further 6 months. The Sigma is gone ( due to weight and focus issues) and a nice plastic Nikon 35mm F1.8 is in its place.

All things being equal and given accuracy of design and construction, give me a composite lens every time.

They tend to bounce if dropped, not bend and break. The light weight means I can take an extra lens or lighten my back pack. While the camera lens combo around my neck seems a lot less cumbersome.

I will say it again, The D800 isn't too big, Its just a bit heavy. Halve its weight with composites and we have a winner.

DaveyJ

I think the clear verdict here is that composites are a more modern and efficient way to go. However for the actual mount we'd take metal......

PB_PM

Metals are still best or the mount due to greater hardness and wear resistance.

Metals actually have a lower life span the carbon fibre based products. Metal rusts and is heavy. carbon fibre is neither.

I bought a Sigma 35 ART and a Nikon 85mm F1.8 as a pair from Gumtree used. The Damn SIGMA is ridiculously heavy and over built. I carted that stupid lens around Europe and used it the grand total of twice.

@tektrader Totally different lenses. The 35mm Art also has way more glass, both in terms of size and number of elements. The primary source of weight is the glass, not the partial material construction of the art lens. The fact that you don't find 35mm very useful is another subject altogether, and should have factored into the purchase decision in the first place.

Ironheart

Metals are still best or the mount due to greater hardness and wear resistance.

Metals actually have a lower life span the carbon fibre based products. Metal rusts and is heavy. carbon fibre is neither.

I think he meant to say "Metals are still best on the mount..."

esquilo

Is composite more brittle or likely to succumb to UV?

Composites that contain carbon black as UV-protector does not succumb to UV radiation. That's one reason why all Nikkor lenses are black. The other is tradition. Nikkor lenses have been black for a very long time. Black rubber focus ring goes well with black anodized aluminium barrel.