Why do lenses with large aperures cost so much more than lenses with smaller apertures? (Page 5): And then there are the investment grade diamonds...... those are the only one that...

Steamboat

And then there are the investment grade diamonds...... those are the only one that have "real" value
Ever try to sell a diamond? I rather sell a great used lens. Percent wise they hold there value better;-)

ExposuresandArt

All the responses to date are correct and helpful. If you can afford the faster lenses -do it! You will grow to appreciate them.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

While I don't own any uber expensive lenses, I don't consider one who does a snob. Frankly, it's a little rude to do so, and sounds like jealousy to me. If I were willing to spend enough, I'd own equipment that would make bird photography easier for me, such as faster focusing lens and camera. Would I be a snob if one day I made the investment?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

tdekany wrote:

There are obvious reasons why the gh5s has no built in IS. However, many of their lenses provide IS. It is evident that the camera wasn’t built with you in mind.

The Lumix GH5 definitely has 5-axis Dual IS II in it... So do the G85 and the forthcoming G9.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

While I don't own any uber expensive lenses, I don't consider one who does a snob. Frankly, it's a little rude to do so, and sounds like jealousy to me. If I were willing to spend enough, I'd own equipment that would make bird photography easier for me, such as faster focusing lens and camera. Would I be a snob if one day I made the investment?

I Agree the word:

SNOB does not at all fit -----

For the folks that have a bag full of Canon L's (I have a few) and or the equally good Nikon equivalent lets just title them "Fortunate"

As for those few that sport a camera bag full of the top of the line Leica and or Zeiss
These folks are:
TOTALY BLESSED

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

davyboy wrote:

Aren’t we all average Joe or Mary’s?

No. None of us are average Joe's and Mary's, even those of us called either Joe or Mary.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Tom Daniels wrote:

Business is get as much as you can for a product. ... (show quote)

The GH5 definitely has 5-axis Dual IS II in it. The GH5s does not. The assumption is that the GH5s will be used in low light on a tripod.

If you need Dual IS II, for run-and-gun stable footage, the GH5 is what you need. It is the more well-rounded of the two. The GH5s is a special application camera, most useful for video in low light.

Although it records still images and video, This camera is VERY video-centric. The GH5 offers a balanced approach. The G9 is VERY stills-centric.

Most of the folks who will use the GH5s will be serious independent filmmakers who likely already have at least one and probably a couple or more GH5 bodies. There are much better choices for stills.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

When you consider the optical design effort, the mechanical packaging design effort, the invention, design and manufacture and maintenance and calibration of all the production equipment and the costs of packaging and distribution you think: "How can they sell that lens for such a low price and make a profit?" Watch the Canon video and see.

lrjames Loc: Lacey Washington

I would venture to say that all of the finest photos are not taken with the finest glass. To me it is more in the learning process and the skill of the photographer that counts, not necessarily the finest equipment.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

lrjames wrote:

I would venture to say that all of the finest photos are not taken with the finest glass. To me it is more in the learning process and the skill of the photographer that counts, not necessarily the finest equipment.

That may be true, but that wasn't the original question....

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

mas24 wrote:

I own the Nikon 50mm f1.8. It is less expensive than the 50mm f1.4. However, as an amateur photographer, I can still do well with the f1.8, rather than spend extra money for the f1.4. Zoom photo lenses are a different story. If you can afford the f2.8 zoom lenses, you begin with an advantage over the slower lenses. The 70-200mm f2.8 lens, is unsurpassed as a sports action lens. And one of the most popular in all Brand names.

And the 50mm f/1.2 is even MORE EXPENSIVE, eh ?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ken_stern wrote:

I Agree the word:

SNOB does not at all fit -----

For the folks that have a bag full of Canon L's (I have a few) and or the equally good Nikon equivalent lets just title them "Fortunate"

As for those few that sport a camera bag full of the top of the line Leica and or Zeiss
These folks are:
TOTALY BLESSED

I have Canon L's and EFs lenses.
Just saw an actual real world comparison of the EFs10-18 to the 11-24L
At 1/10th the cost the 10-18 has a better image quality hands down.

nauticalmike

billnikon wrote:

Why do 1 carat diamonds cost more than 1/2 carat ones? Answer, cause they is more glass and it costs more to cut them, same with lenses, more and bigger glass, costs more to manufacture them.

This is a nonsense response since diamonds come from nature and larger diamonds are more rare then smaller ones. they are not manmade and as such making a slightly larger lens is only slightly harder than making a small one.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

nauticalmike wrote:

But since everything is automated once the machinery is set up to produce a particular lens does it really cost that much more to produce? I am just baffled why one lens can cost $5,000 and another may cost $400 when they both take tack sharp photo's, but one just needs a bit more light to do it.

If you look at lens construction, often it's the small lenses - fisheye, 14mm 24mm etc - that cost a lot more than a single focal length telephoto. The difference is the smaller ones have more glass elements and sometimes special glass too to ensure a sharp image. You will find that often there are as much as fourteen elements in the lens that are eventually mated to make nine of ten groups.

When it comes to long lenses the real challenge is to get a piece of glass that is pure and free from distortion. That's easier when you're cutting little lens elements and a lot harder when doing large ones. That too adds to the price particularly when the long lens is a fast one like f2.8 or faster.

Yes the grinding process is automated however it still takes a lot of time to grind a lens and if you have to grind thirteen lenses to make one, that adds up quickly as does the labour for assembling the elements into groups. Add to that sometimes you need a special glass to correct some defect and that glass is very expensive too.

nauticalmike

Gorzek wrote:

New Lens today (1/9/18) for sports and wildlife ph... (show quote)

I would love to own such a remarkable lens, but since I am on disability and that figure represents about six months of income for me it will never happen unless someone takes pity on me and buys it for me, or I find it in a thrift shop due to someone not knowing what it is really worth.