wickerprints wrote in post #8537423
It's worth noting that when a lens is so cheaply built that one actually resorts to making the mount out of plastic, that should tell you something about the materials used *inside* the lens, too.
I think it probably just says that the lens is so light that there was no reason to pick metal. At 130g, cardboard might have even worked!
I've never seen a lens, even a plastic one, with a worn out mount. Have you? I think it is silly to worry about theoretical failure rates when either a plastic or a metal lens will likely withstand more lens changes that its user can go through. Also, it is not a pro grade lens for many other reasons, so those changing lenses 45 times a day will likely not use it.
For some really bizarre reason, Canon just can't seem to make a decent 50mm lens. The 50/1.8 II is just flimsy, the 50/1.4 has problems with the AF motor, and the 50/1.2L has mediocre performance and focus shift issues relative to its price. Part of the problem is that the basic design of the f/1.8 and f/1.4 have not changed since, what, 1982? It'd be really nice to see Canon devote some attention to the 50mm primes. No need for IS, just better build quality and optics.
Agreed, which Is why I bought the 50 1.8 II. It is $80, so at least when I run into issues with it I don't have to mad that it was an expensive lens giving me problems. If it fails, I can go through 3 more before I equal the cost of a 1.4 (which have been known to fail, too).