Why we will never see anymore legendary lenses from Nikon!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Paul Furman, Mar 17, 2007.

  1. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Come on. They say right there that the new solutions work at least as
    well as the old poison crap.
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It's called Eco-Glass and is why Nikon will no longer produce lenses with
    such legendary optical quality as the 58/1.2 Noct and 28/1.4. It seems lead
    and arsenic is needed to process this spectacular glass. Looks like us
    Nikon shooters are going to be stuck in DX hell. At least the playing feel
    is level now since Nikon downgraded their glass to Canon's standards.

    <http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/environment/products/products02/index.htm>





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements


  3. Note that nowhere in that piece does Nikon claim that they stopped
    using lead based glass. If they did, you would be very, very right
    about quality suffering. Lead along with certain other elements
    such as oxygen, silicon, boron, sodium, potassium, barium, fluorine, phosphorus and
    lanthanum (or certain other rare earths) really are essential for
    glass for photography.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Mar 17, 2007
    #3
  4. What they don't say is that they have replaced all the lead-based glass.
    They have merely created certain new non-lead glasses that replace glasses
    with small amounts of lead in them.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Mar 17, 2007
    #4
  5. It is really hard for me to see the environmental benefit of all this.
    First, how many Nikon lenses will ever end up in city dumps or landfill?
    Second, even if the lenses did end up there, how likely or even possible is
    it that the lead, arsenic, cadmium etc. could get *out* of the glass to
    become a threat to anyone's health? It seems to me you'd have to melt down
    the glass or destroy it by chemical means to release those elements.

    With all the electrical appliances and other items with soldered connections
    that end up in dumps, it seems bizarre to worry about camera lenses. But
    maybe I'm missing something.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Mar 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    The manufacturing process... factory emissions.
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 18, 2007
    #6
  7. She/he is a troll. Please do not feed it.
     
    Charles Schuler, Mar 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul Furman

    Jeff R. Guest

    Hey Rita!
    Was that a deliberate malapropism, or a typo?
     
    Jeff R., Mar 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Paul Furman

    Skip Guest

    Thus the demise of, among others, the equally legendary 200mm f1.8L from
    Canon.
    But, somehow, lead and arsenic free water supplies seem like a worthwhile
    trade off.
     
    Skip, Mar 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Paul Furman

    Charles Guest


    Silica is on the California list of carcinogens. I hope they get it
    out of the glass as well.
     
    Charles, Mar 18, 2007
    #10
  11. <guffaw!>

    You bet, that's what we need. Silica-free glass.

    They should get it out of the sand, too. There's an awful lot of sand. It's
    a wonder we don't all have silicosis already.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Mar 18, 2007
    #11
  12. It seems to me there ought to be methods for keeping it out of emissions
    without keeping it out of the glass.
     
    Neil Harrington, Mar 18, 2007
    #12
  13. Paul Furman

    frederick Guest

    Lead-free solder perhaps?
     
    frederick, Mar 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Paul Furman

    RichA Guest


    The environmentalist plague is costing jobs, products and will soon
    drive up the price of food
    (thanks to the shift of corn from food to ethanol production) by about
    2x or more.
     
    RichA, Mar 18, 2007
    #14
  15. Paul Furman

    Bates Guest


    Not that I disagree with the general sentiment of your post, but I
    thought I would point out that lead most definately will leech out of
    glass over time. In fact, if you have "cut crystal" decanters for
    your spirits (whiskey decanters for example), they are typically made
    of lead crystal, and the lead will over time leech into the whiskey if
    you let it sit long enough...

    Still, I do not think the environmental impact is the lead content in
    the lenses themselves that are the problem, its the emissions and off-
    products that are created during the production of the lenses.

    Remember - it took many many years for Nikon to learn how to make
    their "legendary" lenses with these elements in them. It will take
    some time to figure out how to make them without it too....fortunately
    not as long, but give it some time.....

    Bates....
     
    Bates, Mar 18, 2007
    #15
  16. Yeah, they told me the same thing about the water-based paint I bought that
    was to be a direct replacement for oil base paint. The oil based paint
    flowed better and was much more durable with the added benefit of longevity.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 18, 2007
    #16
  17. It would seem common sense is on the California list of carcinogens. I hope
    they revise the list to remove it.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 18, 2007
    #17
  18. No, I'm aware of lead-free solder, but that's a relatively recent thing,
    isn't it? I wonder how many millions of tons of appliances made years ago
    with conventional solder are sent to the dumps every week.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Mar 18, 2007
    #18

  19. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment of your post, but I
    thought I would point out that lead most definately will leech out of
    glass over time. In fact, if you have "cut crystal" decanters for
    your spirits (whiskey decanters for example), they are typically made
    of lead crystal, and the lead will over time leech into the whiskey if
    you let it sit long enough...
    _______________


    I don't really see how it can do that. I know about the lead crystal, but it
    isn't at all porous, is it? So the whisky can only come in contact with the
    surface of the glass, say a molecule or so thick.

    People have been concerned about the highly toxic mercury leeching out of
    the "silver" fillings most of us have in our teeth too, and if any such
    dangerous leeching could occur I'd think it would occur there. After all,
    the damn things are in our mouths 24 hours a day, every day for all long as
    we have the teeth. But despite the fact that a pretty high percentage of
    that "silver" amalgam is mercury, such fears have been dismissed in the
    field of dentistry. In fact, in my state I understand (from a dental
    technician) a dentist *cannot legally* remove old "silver" fillings for the
    purpose of removing the mercury.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Mar 18, 2007
    #19
  20. In message Paul Furman
    sprach forth the following:
    Name one person harmed by "the old poison crap". Put the name of that
    person right here: __________________________________
     
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Mar 18, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.