200mm f/1.8

[weasel]

I have heard that this lens was discontined because the (some) elements contained banned materials. Can someone elighten me on this?

[PaulB]

Not sure what the "banned" materials might have been, and the lens specification does not give any clues either.
What lens makers tried to do as soon as they could formulate glass without it, and still have the characteristics they needed, was to discontinue using lead (Pb) in their glass mixes. It is perhaps lead you are thinking of? Lead is a 'heavy' metal which it is never really possible to get ris of and is not too good for the environment- it can cause brain damage and long-term genetic damage. As for it being banned I'm sure it may be used in some very specialised glass mixes somewhere still - any ideas anyone?
Canon specifically developed their UD glass and flourite (CaF2), which was first used in the 1969 FD 300/5.6L, for lenses.
The 200/1.8L just seems to have come to the end od production because Canon were only selling a few here and there - which of course caused the S/H price to rocket..............if you NEED a 200/1.8L there is nothing else which will do.

[blue_max]

I have heard that this lens was discontined because the (some) elements contained banned materials. Can someone elighten me on this?

I imagine it was a very minority interest lens due to it's cost. The lens elements could easily have been made using alternative glass. I wouldn't imagine that was THE reason.

Graham

[buze]

Damn, that "new" (older than me!) Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 with its thorium radioactive spiced back element is probably considered a weapon then ? :D

[PaulB]

"Damn, that "new" (older than me!) Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 with its thorium radioactive spiced back element is probably considered a weapon then ?"
Of course.
The Bomb Squad are on their way as I write!

[weasel]

There may well just be nothing to what I was told, but it came from someone I would had thought would know.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It was the lead.. nothing wrong or dangerous with the finished product.. it's just crystal like your Scotch tumblers..

But working with it in lenses creates a lovely leaded fine inhaleable powder... Water keeps the powder from getting airborn.. but the resulting slurry.. is contaminated with lead.. and what do you do with that? And htis is just the troubles of workin with the semi fished product.. lead ahs to be involved in making the crystal itself of course.. and I've no Idea the impact of that process.. but I would hazard a guess it is not good. So it's just the manufacturing process that poses the hazard and environemntal impact.

Getting rid of Leaded glass simply saves $$ as you aren't controoling lead exposure for your workers anymore or worrying about environemtnally safe disposal of the by products.

As mentioned.. if the demand for the lens existed at the time.. Canon would have simply moved to a lead free design as all of there modern lenses did.. The other big primes weren't dropped... they were just upgraded.

With the new digital SLR market and it's dramtic increase in demand for lenses.. who knows? It might be back on the drawing boards.

Nikon only recently made there version avaiable.. it is totally new f/2 design with "VR" (Nikon's "IS" equivelent.

This may be all Canon needs to push them to redesign the "Holy Grail" of Canon lenses.