Sensei Rob wrote:

What's up with plastic lens barrels? Back in the day every manufacturer's top of the line offerings had some type of metal lens barrel, but now everyone makes them out plastic.

I get it...it's cheap and lightweight.

The trouble is, it's cheap and lightweight.

I don't mind that from companies like Tamron, but the big companies at least ought to offer a couple of versions (kind of like how Sigma once sold a contemporary and sport version of the (kind of) same lens).

As a hobbyist, I'm after build quality and satisfaction of feel more than out and out performance.

I don't know if others feel the same. Perhaps I'm in the minority here.

I used to favour metal-built things over plastic, but then I started photography in the 80s, when plastic became ubiquitous. And a lot of it was very cheap and nasty, flimsy and fragile. The cheap feel of early Canon EOS SLRs put me off that brand totally. And yes, I much preferred older metal Nikkor lenses to the new flimsy plastic AF versions, even if the newer ones were optically better. But now, many companies, Nikon especially, make products using plastic that are just as good if not better than their metal ancestors. Plastic is more flexible and resilient, less prone to expansion and contraction due to heat cycles, doesn't corrode or need special anti-corrosion treatment, and can be easily formed in more comfortable and ergonomic shapes. Yes, plastics can wear quicker and warp, and not fit as well, leading to rattly and flimsy mechanisms that go out of whack too easily, but Nikon for example ensure they use metal components where necessary and the better option. I once tried a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Whatever lens and it was so poorly made, it actually went out of focus if you tapped it. Like the lens elements were rattling around loose inside. It seems manufacturing standards have improved since then though.
For me, lightweight is better. You don't want to be lugging around several kilos of metal when travelling.