Lens build quality over time, and which are/were best?

Hi all,

I found myself wondering about something that I thought might be fun to discuss: which lenses had the best build quality (NOT optical quality)?

From my own experience, I remember picking up a Pentax SV with a bunch of Takumars and being really impressed by their build. Metal construction, smooth focusing, reassuring weight. Also radioactive, partly, of course, but that's a separate matter.

I then switched to a Pentax K1000 followed by an MX and remember being disappointed by the K-mount lens I had for it (I think it was the 50/1.7?). Sure the build wasn't terrible but it was definitely a step down compared to the Takumars.

Right now I have a Minolta XE-7 with a MD Rokkor-X 50/1.7. The Rokkor is quite nice, almost as good as the Takumar, but the focusing isn't quite as smooth and some parts of it (like the aperture ring) feel just a little bit imperfect.

I'd be curious how you think other manufacturers compare. I've heard good things about FD-mount Canon glass, especially the earlier versions. I'm also really curious how Nikon AI lenses handle. In general, it seems build took a nosedive in the autofocus era, moving to using much more plastic. But the decline probably started earlier than that, e.g. the K-mount lens I was using probably came out in the 80s.

I'd love to hear your experience. I suspect some answers won't be surprising -- presumably some of the pricey Leica/Carl Zeiss lenses have build quality to match -- but I'd be especially interested in lenses that were surprisingly well built given their price.

I have just posed in the currently running Minolta thread and overall I am a lover and user of Minoltas. But.........My 1st decent SLR was a Pentax SV with the 55mm F1.8 Takumar, followed by 28/F3.5 and a 135/3.5. They were a terrific combination. The 55mm was exceptionally good considering it was pre multi coating of all their lenses. If I think back the SV was possibly the camera that I appreciated the most and what I cut my photography teeth on. It was so simple to operate even if it needed a seperate meter or the clip on one fitted to the top of the prism. The thing I think I appreciated most was the absolute simplicity without all the electronic features installed in modern cameras whether I want them or not. Totally battery dependant is not really a good idea - is it?

In the 70's Pentax in UK ran a series of adverts that summed them up simply, but straight to the point. There was only one sentence:- 'Just hold a Pentax'. That said it all

I think the term "build-quality" is a bit vague.

Maybe you can name features to assess it on.

materials, damping, play, click-stops, lettering, smoothness of edges ?

But also position of controls, throw, length of barrel? Or are these rather design features?


And most fellows here know, I got my difficulties with the term "best".
One might love his heavy brass-barrel lens, whereas the other may prefer the same lens in light plastic-barrel.
The Tesssar-type is available as pancake lens (Industar) , but also with long barrel acting as shade (Tessar).

I agree with AgX, best by what standard. My current Minolta and Konica Minolta AF G and D lens are as rugged as any all metal lens I have or have used in the past.

All my old Nikon AI and non-AI lenses have dry feeling helicoils i.e the focus feel is dry. All my old Leica lenses mechanically feel like new. 50mm Summicron DR, 50mm Summicron V1, 35mm 3.5 Summaron. Quite remarkable really.

Is that longevity accidential or by purpose? I mean, which cameras have actually been designed or build to last to specs. for 60 years without any servicing inbetween?

The best would be lenses made from gold, Sterling silver, stainless steel... then there is Brass, a very good bet.

In the absence of criteria, "best" is necessarily always entirely a matter of subjectivity and therefore pretty much meaningless.
I have no idea what the phrase, "build quality" means. It seems to mean something like, "Very Obviously Made of Metal", or maybe it means something like, "this feels like it was expensive to manufacture".

narsuitus said:

In my opinion, build-quality declined as manufacturers put more plastic, rubber, motors, and moving parts in their lenses.

Click to expand...

How have lens declined?

There a million nuances to any real answer to your question, but for a rough, bird's eye view over time, you can get a big part of the picture by looking at one curve that will likely surprise a lot of people: the value of the yen.

As the value of the yen increased, starting in the mid 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s, there was a strong drive among the Japanese manufacturers to develop less expensive manufacturing methods, led very much by cheaper materials (in short: plastic) and more automated manufacturing processes (like injection molding of plastic).

Understanding the effect of currency exchange rates on the prices of imports and exports is the key to understanding this. Until the mid 1970s, the yen was held at an artificially low value relative to the dollar and European currencies. This made Japanese exports very cheap (artificially so) in those markets. The Japanese could spend extravagantly on labor-intensive, metal cameras and lenses (and cars and ships and everything else) and still sell them cheaply to American and European consumers, because they effectively got a huge discount on their costs when they exported them.

American and European manufacturers (especially of cars and ships and steel et. al.) didn't like this much, of course, and the Japanese were eventually pressured into allowing the yen to float to its 'true' value. If they had made no changes to their manufacturing costs, they would have had to triple or quadruple their prices. So instead, they worked very hard to find ways to manufacture more cheaply and keep their prices low in foreign markets.

Obviously, not all camera gear was made in Japan, but the Japanese takeover of the world camera and optics market in the 1960s (greatly assisted by the low value of their currency) forced manufacturers in other countries to find ways to compete with the low prices of the Japanese. Some, like Leica, didn't even try. But others tried to cut their manufacturing costs in sync with the Japanese. So there were knock-on effects.

Again, millions of nuances. For example, it is also true that there were significant advances in plastic and electronic technologies in the 1970s/80s, so the Japanese had both a need to lower manufacturing costs (because of the rising yen) and the ability to do so (because of better plastics).

It's also important to note, as other have done, that plastics and electronics don't necessarily equal inferior "build quality", and along with advances in cheaper technologies, there were advances in quality control and high-quality automated manufacturing (and continue to be).

But in a general sense, the value of the yen is a kind of hidden, but very large hand that shaped the camera gear we all know and love over the past 50 years, as it shaped many other things about the world's economic and industrial history over that time. The value of the Chinese Yuan has had important ramifications in similar ways over the past 30 years.

Huss said:

All my old Nikon AI and non-AI lenses have dry feeling helicoils i.e the focus feel is dry.

Click to expand...

Yes. And dry = easy to knock out of focus when cradling the lens to take a shot.

I always had an appreciation of Olympus OM Zuicko lenses. They have a lovely feel and my copies have held up well over the 35+ years I have owned them despite being nearly all second hand when I got them. The Leica M lenses I own are similarly perfect, only even better engineered. My Nikkor AIs lenses are also very solid and workman like tools. 100% reliable, if less jewel like.

Leica. I've been shooting their R lenses on Nikons for eons, and the build quality is like something from NASA, or as a friend said, BETTER than NASA! No complaints on the image quality either. Beautiful bokeh, just a step up from anything I have ever used. Images, especially w/ the 90 Elmarit and Summicron, look pretty amazing close up if you catch the light right, and there is no better 35mm portrait lens than the 90 2 Summicron. Same goes for their RF lenses, which makes sense as many of their R lenses were the same optical designs as the RF lenses. I think Nikon did this as well.

A lot of lens makers had one lens that was their signature lens. Leica probably has a dozen or more. When you pick up one of the R lenses, it feels like a solid block of glass and metal, which it is. If you want the highest quality and the best optics, Leitz/Leica is at the top of the pyramid and has been for a long, long time. Fortunately, I like the lower priced SLR lenses, not the fancy APO things.

momus said:

Leica. When you pick up one of the R lenses, it feels like a solid block of glass and metal, which it is.

Click to expand...

Well, I can take one of my 70's Sigma lenses and I got the same feel....

IMHO the lenses built by Zeiss Ikon for the Contarex camera system would have to rank right at the top for build quantity. In fact it could be argued that the drive to make the best lenses for a 35mm camera system may have been part of the reason for the ultimate demise of the company.

For their time period they are probably very close to the top for image quality as well, though that may be a bit harder to determine since the criteria for establishing that may not be quite as easy to define and can be dependent on individual preferences.

Thanks everyone for the interesting thoughts! @villagephotog that's a fascinating point about the Yen playing a part!

Admittedly the question is vague. @AgX , you asked:

AgX said:

materials, damping, play, click-stops, lettering, smoothness of edges ?
But also position of controls, throw, length of barrel? Or are these rather design features?

Click to expand...

I would say very firmly the former! I think you articulated the criteria better than I could have. Materials, damping, play, click-stops, lettering, smoothness of edges all determine what I subjectively think of as "good build". For materials, an all-metal construction is what I personally like. Of course this is subjective, I am sure many modern plastic lenses are very solid, so admittedly this is perhaps not an entirely rational assessment.

This may still be too vague, but I'm enjoying the experiences in this thread. It sounds like we have some votes for Leica. Apart from that, Olympus OM lenses, Pentax Takumars, and the Zeiss Ikon Contarex lenses have been mentioned. It appears the opinion on Nikon AI and AI-S lenses is that they are solid but not quite as smooth.

How about Canon FL/FD lenses?

Paul Howell said:

How have lens declined?

Click to expand...

For example, I have a Vivitar 70-210mm Series I AI f/3.5 manual focus zoom lens that I replaced with a Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 D auto focus zoom lens. However, when the auto focus motor in the Nikkor died the manual focus feature also died. Rather than fixing my Nikkor, I just put it on the shelf and went back to using my old reliable Vivitar zoom.

Diffraction said:

Hi all,

I found myself wondering about something that I thought might be fun to discuss: which lenses had the best build quality (NOT optical quality)?

From my own experience, I remember picking up a Pentax SV with a bunch of Takumars and being really impressed by their build. Metal construction, smooth focusing, reassuring weight. Also radioactive, partly, of course, but that's a separate matter.

I then switched to a Pentax K1000 followed by an MX and remember being disappointed by the K-mount lens I had for it (I think it was the 50/1.7?). Sure the build wasn't terrible but it was definitely a step down compared to the Takumars.

Right now I have a Minolta XE-7 with a MD Rokkor-X 50/1.7. The Rokkor is quite nice, almost as good as the Takumar, but the focusing isn't quite as smooth and some parts of it (like the aperture ring) feel just a little bit imperfect.

I'd be curious how you think other manufacturers compare. I've heard good things about FD-mount Canon glass, especially the earlier versions. I'm also really curious how Nikon AI lenses handle. In general, it seems build took a nosedive in the autofocus era, moving to using much more plastic. But the decline probably started earlier than that, e.g. the K-mount lens I was using probably came out in the 80s.

I'd love to hear your experience. I suspect some answers won't be surprising -- presumably some of the pricey Leica/Carl Zeiss lenses have build quality to match -- but I'd be especially interested in lenses that were surprisingly well built given their price.

Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of NikkorAI glass; have a few from the 1970s. They are optically and mechanically A1 but, I do not mind the new more plastically Nikkors either; none have ever disappointed in any way. The metal construction just has a sturdier feel to it.

I agree that the Zeiss lenses for the Contarex might be at the top of all time.

Then i'd say, for japanese lenses, that the Pentax Takumars (Super Takumars and SMCT) are, for me, at the top of mechanical construction in smoothness and fit and finish.

Below those, i'd equally rank:
- Pentax K lenses (first generation, not M nor A)
- Nikkor pre-AI lenses; however they tend to suffer from dry helicoids easily
- Canon FD lenses of the 1st ("chrome nose") generation.
- Canon New FD lenses of premium quality (i.e. the 50/1.2, 28/2, 100/2, etc) (All Canon new FD lenses have a special helicoid treament that never dries up, their helicoids always feel like new.)

I don't have enough experience with Minolta Rokkors to rank them. And frankly I don't care about Olympus OM lenses and the Maitaini cult.

Then, on a lower tier i'd place:
1st- Pentax M lenses and Nikkor AI and AI-S lenses;
2nd- Canon FD lenses of the last SSC era (1975-79); Pentax A lenses.

Up to this point all the lens lines above are really high quality.

Next are the "cheap" (economy) Canon New FD lenses like the 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8. They are cheapened down (for example their aperture linkages don't ride on ball bearings like the good FD lenses). However they are mostly reliable.

Now here comes the horrible quality lenses:
1st- Nikon AF and AF-D lenses: all numbers are painted on, not engraved; they wear down quite easily. Construcion often isn't so nice, except for the premium lenses, but they are still not as good as the predecessors.
2nd- Nikon Series E. If you dissasemble one like the 35/2.5 or 50/1.8, be ready for a shock. Horrible inside. Plastic helicoids, etc.
3rd- Most third-party lenses. You see, on many of them each glass element, instead of having its own retainer, is "sandwiched" against other with little spacers between one element and another. One retainer for many lenses. This won't give you good manufacturing precisions, obviously. I don't like third-party lenses in general.

Diffraction said:

How about Canon FL/FD lenses?

Click to expand...

FL lenses are nice but don't quite have the fit and finish quality of 1st gen FD lenses, except for some premium FL lenses like the 85-300/5. That one is really, really built.

flavio81 said:

3rd- Most third-party lenses. You see, on many of them each glass element, instead of having its own retainer, is "sandwiched" against other with little spacers between one element and another. One retainer for many lenses. This won't give you good manufacturing precisions, obviously.

Click to expand...

A interesting hint I have not seen at Apug before.

Concerning Canon zoom lenses in FD mount (old or new): are there ones that fair better concerning the rollers in the cams? I do not think so.

AgX said:

Concerning Canon zoom lenses in FD mount (old or new): are there ones that fair better concerning the rollers in the cams? I do not think so.

Click to expand...

You're correct and I forgot about that.

So, amend my ranking above and remove from the ranking the Canon New FD lenses that rely on rubber cam roller bearings. These are most (almost all) zooms, and all lenses with a floating system (i.e. 24/2.8, 28/2.0).

Those roller bearings will need replacement, otherwise the optical performance won't be optimum.

Cheaper lenses use nylon or metal rollers that don't degrade. However, paradoxically, it seems that Canon's choice was the premium one -- these rubber bearings in theory would give tighter tolerances and won't damage the zoom cam.

I’m going to go against the grain here a bit, as I cannot help but know the engineering of camera lenses.

I have to say that every time I pick up and use one of my E-Series Nikon 50 f/1.8 lenses I am entirely impressed by how well the quality of that optical design holds up mounted in innovative (for the time) materials and opto-mechanics which were optimized to balance manufacturing cost and quality. As we know, that design hasn’t changed for decades except in minor ways, but regardless of the mechanics it is placed in, the performance remains reasonably consistent.

The E-series lenses were the 1970s photography industry version of the Model T Ford production: both designs cut manufacturing costs to make them affordable while still retaining reliability and quality. Nikon changed the landscape of the lens market just like they had done with the SLR.. with the introduction of the E-series, new optics across the landscape began to be packaged in plastics as well.

Having been deeply involved in the design process for optical assemblies from start to finish countless times in my career, I really appreciate the design effort involved in getting cost down while maintaining performance. Over-engineering can be just as much a problem as under-engineering (just ask German camera manufacturers about this topic roughly a year after the release of the Nikon F), and with the E-series Nikon started using a new era of design and materials to ask where that balance is.

As AgX rightfully notes above, “quality” means different things to different people. For me, quality means good engineering to achieve design goals. Low cost and preconceived notions of material selection does not equate to a certain level of quality. What is a thing designed to do, and does it do it well? That’s the question I ask.

The Nikon 50 1.8E 2nd generation lens that I had (sold it with my N2000) was actually very nice. With the 2nd gen they improved construction/feel and design.
Really nice lightweight lens, much nicer to work with than the absolutely awful build quality Pentax SMC-A 50 1.7 that I had. That was maybe the cheapest/worst built lens I've had. Great optics though.

Yeah good point. 2nd gen E-series they improved the details that could be improved. Not every design team has the good practice of acting on lessons learned. In this case they did.