I literally think they want to keep it as a cheap as possible, because even $10 (to entry level hobbyists) might mean something. To professionals, an extra $10, 20, 30 dollars is like pocket change. Me personally, I'd pay an extra $10-30 to have a solid metal mount versus plastic. But, I too have had the 50mm/1.8D and it held up (while I had it, until I sold the camera and lens) for a long time, even with light "abuse" (got dropped once or twice).

I mean maybe it is. But $10 (literally $10 more to the consumer) is probably not going to sway someone unless they are on an extreme budget and that $10 makes or breaks it. Now if we were talking $50+ yeah maybe for entry level this could cause someone to look elsewhere (3rd party like Sigma, etc). I'll be honest, when I s tarted in photography, I didn't start at the bottom (in terms of gear selection). I chose the mid-range so I had room to grow into the camera/system (I had a Nikon D5100 as my first camera). But even then, $10-$20 wasn't a big deal. Yeah I mean if I don't have to spend $10 I wont, but if you look at it from a longevity standpoint, an extra $10 for a strong lens mouse is definitely worth it, as you probably put a decent amount of stress on the lens mount after a lot of removals and re-attachments. Now this may never be an issue for most, but I have seen people who have had mounts that broke/wore out. Not saying the metal won't but it will be more durable

The lens itself is so lightweight and plastic, that having a metal mount would probably only ensure utter destruction of the lens during an impact. A plastic mount, on such an ultralightweight and "affordably assembled" lens, actually gives the lens itself a fighting chance of surviving an impact, by maintaining the practice of offering a single break point.

In other words, metal mount might have only cost an extra $5, but it could cost you the *entire* lens in the event of a severe impact.

TLDR, the engineers are not dumb. They use plastic wisely.

There are multiple versions of the 50 1.8, I believe, even the D version.

It might be penny-pinching, but my statement remains true- a metal mount, if used on a lens the rest of which is ALSO constructed in a penny-pinching manner, all but ensures total pulverization of the lens in the event of an impact. Besides, most of the time the lens is so lightweight anyways that it just doesn't need a metal mount. And if you plan to completely wear out a plastic mount under normal wear & tear, you'll wear out the entire rest of the lens under normal wear & tear too.

Either way, as others have said, most of the time plastic is used in a mount, it is a lens that you'd just be buying a whole new lens in the event of a severe accident or normal wear & tear, regardless.

@Robert1975
A true pixel peeper needs to bring back those precious memories of every single grain of sand on the beach.

"The greatest is within the smallest" - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC. William Blake was pixel peeper. The greatest minds of the world are pixel peepers. Quantum-atomic theory? Pixel peeping at academic level.

You are equating viewing your vacation photos with quantum theory? Credibility = 0.

LMOE You are equating credibility with facetiousness. Humorability = 0

@ octovian... check over at YouTube. There is a pretty good shootout, subject by subject, comparing the two Tamron superwide zooms. Spoiler alert [subjective]: The comparatively flat and rather blah rendering of the 10-24mm side by side with results from the more costly, but regrettably humongous Tamron largely put me off the former.

Perhaps someone with genuine insight as opposed to guess experts here might comment on punching up the output of the less unwieldy and lower cost alternative in post.

https://youtu.be/Bj1z5Hg2pfY . Check it out! ;)

Are the D7000 and the other Not Too Old bodies have a compatible issue technically with the P line or Nikon simply wants you to buy a newer camera body? Where are the firmware updates? It has been a while now...

@beavertown: The 'Not Too Old' bodies have a compatibility issue with the P-series: The P-series lenses no longer have switches on the lens to control VR and AF/MF. These are now controlled from the camera's menus. Only the newer bodies have those items on the menus.
Could it be addressed by firmware updates for the older bodies? I don't know the answer to that, but so far it hasn't.

To get a firmware updates from Nikon seems like winning a lottery, I won't hold my breath.

This is a very bad strategy, to break support for camera bodies means customers are not able to buy more new lenses (P Line), the decision to replace the current body depends on how bad it performs, as far as I know many of their older models from 2011 onward are still performing fantastically, will these people renew their cameras for this P line or Nikon is selling less P line plus sales of camera bodies stay the same?

The 11-22mm you'll find is quite a bit better at everything by a small margin compared to the 10-18mm.

Physics say you can build better wide lenses for mirrorless cameras than cameras with large flange distance. Canon seem to be taking advantage of the mount on all its lenses making them better than EF-S ones.

The 11-22mm is more of a premuim lens, that shows in the vastly higher metalic build quality versus the plastic 10-18mm. The optics are quite great and the IS and focus motor better behaved. Just more premium feel all over it, even turning the zoom and focus rings says it all.

BrightTiger - Thank you for the link! A very useful tool. I have the now old Sigma 10-20 F 4-5.6. Not top notch optically but I am satisfied with it if used carefully for the best results. Initially, I was excited about this new offering from Nikon until it became clear it is not a significant step up for me. If I need a big increase in optical performance, I'll spend hundreds more --- and I certainly won't be switching to Canon for their version.

Thanks, BrightTiger & Ebrahim! I carefully checked the EF-M 11-22mm in Brian's comparator at the-digital-picture before I ever jumped on a barely used M3 bundle which included both the 11-22mm and the 22mm/2.0. The Imatest results Brian showed seemed almost too good to be true for border to border IQ competence across the FL range. Brian, unfortunately, had little comment on the EOS-M system.

This tiny zoom has flown way under the radar, due, I think, to its being dismissively "non-reviewed" along with the heavily dissed original M-body camera. Thereafter, the enthusiast community felt justified in ignoring it as "old news". Only a few rumors from users adventurous enough to bring in an M3 kit directly from Japan, if U.S. based, hinted at its potential. I was more uncertain about its suitability for video.

Contrary to popular presumptive opinion, I consider the 11-22mm, 22mm/2.0, & 28mm macro, along w/ adapted compact EF/EF-S primes one unique ADVANTAGE for EOS-M over Sony AND m4/3.

Robert1975, some people like Sigma some people don't. I guess you're talking about Sigma 10-20? There are always people who find a good value in this kind of lens so if it's not for you.....it's simple, just don't buy.

I always appreciate to see new products here at Dpreview, and unless I actually used a new product in a real life situation, I would never make a quick judgement on it. Like the D7500, all the people who complained about this cam have never used it, yet, but they already made a quick judgement on it and it's a typical trend here so there's no surprise for me.

You are a troll, aren't you. Nikon budget stuff DOES get you close to high-end stuff. One can produce huge prints using a D3300 and 18-55, or 70-300, and we all know what the tiny 35 1.8 does.

This AF-P 10-20 DOES NOT fulfill the standards set by Nikon themselves! It's noticeably worse than Canon 10-18.

If we buy this lens then we give permission to Nikon to lower their standards. Go ahead, I don't care :)

@Robert1975
You don't get it. Sorry. If you think there is no difference between the D3300 and a D810 or between low budget lenses and high-end lenses you should consider going to an optician to check your eyes. You get what you pay for.

Yes, I think there is difference between D810 and D3300.

No, I don't think AF-P 10-20 is value for money.

Is that clear now?

FWIW, we never use any lens corrections, in-camera or otherwise, in any of our sample galleries, regardless of whether it's a cheap DX zoom or an expensive FX prime. The only exception is when a lens / camera combination has a profile built into the Raw file in Adobe Camera Raw.

@Robert1975
Ah, you are a Canon troll here? Didn't know it until now. At least your gear list is empty. You can pretend anything...

A-sign - he's actually telling the truth there. Sorry it pains you to hear.

Pretend? I use Nikon and speak all the best about 18-55, 70-300, 35 1.8, 50 1.8 and many other lenses.

But not this incomplete product. What were they thinking?

It's because most people buy only budget lenses. There it is where the money comes from. A lot of users are D3400 or D5600 users. The majority of photographers aren't the D810 users with a 14-24 mm f/2.8 lens, although it's very good photo equipment but that doesn't sale in masses due to it's high price. Try to operate a big company and tell us what your plans are.

The thing about an imperfect lens with CA or weird distortion or other faults is that those imperfections don't necessarily make an image worse. Technically, yes, but. Technically good picture isn't necessarily a good picture. It's really about composition, subject matter, lighting, etc. A bad composition boringly shot on a perfect camera and lens is still a bad, throw away picture that interests no one. It's a $300 lens, an interesting option for a D3300 owner who wants to experiment with UWA without selling a kidney. Nothing will stop you from making great images with this reasonably priced lens that WILL have built in corrections and handy VR on a Nikon DSLR.

Exactly, I would actually pay more than $300 for a small 230g UWA if it only performed as good as, or BETTER than an old Sigma. Or at least like Canon 10-18.

This way, it makes no sense to buy AF-P 10-20. Even if I didn't have UWA lens. Anyway, I can use P&S with manual exp/raw and make great images.

DX users are generally disappointed with this release. One guy in the forums is already returning the lens.

Dylanear: I'm only suggesting that nit picking the failings of a budget lens misses the point and not that everyone is equally well served by a point and shoot or an iPhone. It's $310, list, you might pick it up cheaper later on. Built in corrections for CA and distortion are going to be very convenient. I disagree with your suggestion that images made with this lens will be no better that those from a point and shoot or a cell phone. And NO point and shoot or cell phone approaches the angle of view of this lens. And please, cell phone images really only look good on a cell phone screen, it's where they belong.

Well, we can just agree to disagree I suppose, Old Cams. I think it hurts the Nikon brand to release a lens that poor at any price. Nikon is better served concentrating on higher quality cameras and lenses and leaving the super cheap items to third parties if they can't do better than this. The edges are really horrible. As bad as my old 18-35mm AF-D variable ap zoom and that may be the worst Nikon lens I've experienced.

@dylanear

I don't think you will like whatever Nikon makes. Do you expect someone who paid $400 on a D3400 to buy a lens for $600, $1000 or $2000?

I think the detail is just fine. Mabye I've come to expect as much from cheap zoom lenses. But I do think that it could certainly be much worse, considering the size/weight. You could easily get a 12 x 18 print, granted if you dont look at it too hard.

@Robert1975
If you want details and that is your main concern here then buy a D810 together with a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. Where is the problem? You get what you pay for.

I paid $250 for a Sigma designed in 2003 and it looks better than AF-P 10-20 released in 2017. Canon 10-18 also looks better and it's cheaper!

I don't need D810, I want Nikon to catch up with competition, but if it doesn't I'll be happy to switch systems.

"if it doesn't I'll be happy to switch systems"

Haha, yes. Tell that yourself. Switching systems. You are probably an expert that is switching systems the whole time. Just to resell all the lenses and relearn how to operate all those new cameras is probably more time saving for you than to buy gear that serves your needs - even Nikon is having that. Flawed logic your sentence - sorry.

Yes, thank you very much for your help. You are so wise.

Robert1975, this lens has VR which will be a bigger factor in getting images that are "better", especially with HighRes cameras. Add that it has a really good AF-P focus system, it seems like a better and more practical package. And it's less chunky! Sure the Canon may be a better lens, but I don't care, I have a Nikon. Let's celebrate this lens finally exists!

What you gain at the long end, you lose at the wide. Swings and roundabouts. Yes, if you have the two available to compare immediately, it will be noticeable. I have 7-14 (14-28 equivalent) in M43. What tends to happen is that I start off at 7/14mm and, rarely for internal architecture, narrow the FOV from there. I'd expect a similar habit for any UWA camera lens combination and the user will just become used to their own widest view. Sometimes it will be enough and sometimes not. Wider is better IMO but, as with all kit, everything is a balance between cost and benefit.

"So canon's 10-18 equals 16mm on a full frame sensor (due to a 1.6 crop) while nikons 10-20 with a 1.5 crop will give you 15mm full frame equivalent."

yes it is, for the 360 panoramas... in some instances the 1.5 vs. 1.6x factor may translate in 30% less shots for a 360 (vs. a Canon 1.6x).
Hence most 360 pros actually avoid the Canon 1.6 cameras.

Some of us don't need him to explain his comment.

Unfortunately at dpr it's sometimes necessary to explain if you want to know the intent of the writer. With the maniacal level of corporate buttkissing around here, statements that should be obvious sarcasm are often, sadly, intended as written.

Closer to CA free? Gimme a break, all extremely wide angle lenses have CA!

@ Serban Claudiu "Considering that you have Canon equipment " - I'd say that the OP owning the lens qualifies him/her to make the comparison. Maybe comments from those who don't should be ignored (do you own it?).

@Serban Claudiu What an ill-motivated comment.

Hey, don't taint Voigtlander's name in this. They have some excellent optical and construction quality ultra-wide angle lenses (see their 10mm, 12mm and 15mm manual full frame lenses as examples).