Plastic lens mounts.

Hello.

I'm musing buying the efs 10-18 as a cheap way of getting wide angle on my 7Dii and it is at least half the price of the 10-22.
I read some reviews and it appears to be quite the bargain from an optical quality standpoint.

I am however concerned about the plastic lens mount. Listening to gossip over the years I have heard tales of small plastic dust particles being shaved off the mount and finding their way onto the sensor.
I'm sure canon use very high quality plastics in production but none the less, it would be interesting to know if anyone has seen this in real life.

My thanks in advance.

I have many lenses that are plastic mount and whilst i cant speak for that one i have never heard of any plastic shaving off.

You have nothing to fear with plastic lens mounts. Take a look at this for a listing of lenses that have them- they include the 35L, 24-70 2.8, 14L. All much larger and heavier than the 10-18.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ations-and-plastic-mounts

I've never seen any rumors or complaints of plastic coming off the lens mount and making it onto the sensor.

Cool. I'll attribute my concerns to urban legend then, and go get my new toy.

Thanks.

Canon changed the plastic used for body caps to avoid what you are concerned about. Logically they also did that for lens mounts.

Qlayer2 wrote in post #17744974
You have nothing to fear with plastic lens mounts. Take a look at this for a listing of lenses that have them- they include the 35L, 24-70 2.8, 14L. All much larger and heavier than the 10-18.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ations-and-plastic-mounts

I've never seen any rumors or complaints of plastic coming off the lens mount and making it onto the sensor.

From the LensRentals article:

" ...(the mount is the internal part of the lens where the bayonet -- the metal part that twists into the camera -- attaches by several screws)."

The EF-S 10-18 seems to have a plastic bayonet. That's not what Roger Cicala writes about.

use a blower religiously. With or without the plastic mount. The actual sensor has a cover over it, so even if some odd freak of nature where debris is around the sensor, not likely to ruin it. I have a camera with a scuffed up sensor, and you wouldnt even know it unless I told you about it. Cant even see the problem at any aperture, however, dust will definitely show up!

agedbriar wrote in post #17745390
From the LensRentals article:

" ...(the mount is the internal part of the lens where the bayonet -- the metal part that twists into the camera -- attaches by several screws)."

The EF-S 10-18 seems to have a plastic bayonet. That's not what Roger Cicala writes about.

This. For example, it says my 24-70 mk I has a plastic mount - but the part which mounts to the camera (the bayonet) is most certainly metal. The 50mm f/1.8 II has a plastic bayonet. So does the EF-S 10-18.

Metal is of course better, but I've not had any problems with the plastic ones. just be gentle putting on and taking off an you should be fine.

GregDunn wrote in post #17745529
This. For example, it says my 24-70 mk I has a plastic mount - but the part which mounts to the camera (the bayonet) is most certainly metal. The 50mm f/1.8 II has a plastic bayonet. So does the EF-S 10-18.

The original article is at http://petapixel.com …ens-rentals-investigates/. If you read it, and pay particular attention to the pictures, it is clear the LensRental people are not referring to the bayonet portion of the rear mount.

Sorry for any confusion.
I did mean the bayonet part of the mounting arrangement.

Right, just wanted to be clear that the mount and bayonet portion are not the same thing.

I read the lens rentals article and it seems a bit ambiguous.

I have (rightly or wrongly) always considered slr lenses to be bayonet mount(with the exception of screw in types), thus I consider the part that connects the lens to the camera to be the mount.
In fact, if the bayonet did not exist you could not mount the lens.

I'm confused.

fordmondeo wrote in post #17746087
I read the lens rentals article and it seems a bit ambiguous.

I have (rightly or wrongly) always considered slr lenses to be bayonet mount(with the exception of screw in types), thus I consider the part that connects the lens to the camera to be the mount.
In fact, if the bayonet did not exist you could not mount the lens.

I'm confused.

In fact, on POTN, it's the bayonet part the one that's usually called the "lens mount".

The part that Roger Cicala calls lens mount is normally hidden to the average user.