Why do lenses with large aperures cost so much more than lenses with smaller apertures?
Jan 9, 2018 19:54:35 #
jackpi wrote:
Really? What do you know about lenses and the size-dependent distortions they have that must be corrected? Did you ever wonder why lenses have so many elements and why micro-4/3 lenses are less expensive than full frame lenses? Did you ever attempt to find out why?
In all honesty no I have not. that was really part of the reason behind this post...
Jan 9, 2018 20:05:38 #
Thank you everyone for the information, and especially the videos on lens construction. Being an engineer, I find those to be very interesting. Although I guess that my question has been answered for the most part I guess my next question would be why don't they just make the best lenses that they can at a reasonable price for everyone rather than only making avery small number of the better lenses, as I'm sure we all want the best that we can afford, and if the prices were lower we could all afford the best.
Jan 9, 2018 20:15:45 #
nauticalmike wrote:
Thank you everyone for the information, and especi... (show quote)
The best lenses cost the most to make. Only the well healed or those who are in photography as a career are willing to pay the price. Less expensive, but still capable, lenses are made for the rest of us. I'm surprised I have to explain this to an engineer.
Jan 9, 2018 20:36:33 #
nauticalmike wrote:
Thank you everyone for the information, and especi... (show quote)
Because bringing things down to the lowest common denominator does not promote quality. Look what it has done to our education system. Mediocrity should not be a goal in any endeavor.
If somebody wants something better, the attitude that should be encouraged is to work toward that goal.
--
Jan 9, 2018 21:22:54 #
nauticalmike wrote:
This is a nonsense response since diamonds come from nature and larger diamonds are more rare then smaller ones. they are not man made and as such making a slightly larger lens is only slightly harder than making a small one.
You know not of what you speak, Sir!
(Did I say that politely enough? I could say it more explicitly if you prefer!
)Jan 9, 2018 21:25:14 #
As a retired Pro Photographer that worked every day since I was 12 years old in the business as my Dad was a WWII photographer what a lot of the posts here are saying is U pay for what U get ... Better Quality ... Better Endurance ... = Better Images with lower light levels as well as Long Lasting Lenses that rarely fail you. Opt for the best lens when you can afford them but also consider the middle quality lenses which are just below the quality of the lower aperture lenses. They will sometimes even be sharper than some of the lowest aperture lenses as I found out over many years in this business. Be wise and shop used lenses on eBay or elsewhere when U can't justify the expense. I retired 5 years ago from this business after over 50 years in it and agree with a lot of the posts here. Thanks for reading this little rant!
Jan 9, 2018 21:25:40 #
mcveed wrote:
The best lenses cost the most to make. Only the well healed or those who are in photography as a career are willing to pay the price. Less expensive, but still capable, lenses are made for the rest of us. I'm surprised I have to explain this to an engineer.
I'm surprised that an engineer doesn't understand. I have much more respect than that for most of the engineers that I know, both male and female!
Jan 9, 2018 21:49:37 #
I would add, that as a Canon owner, I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - the plastic fantastic - which I use from time to time, but I also have an FL 55mm f/1.2 adapted to EF mount, dating from around 1968. So it's manual focus, and has a very narrow depth of field wide open, but it has very different optical characteristics, and that is the point. They both have a place and a role to play, and the results are not the same. As does my Helios 58mm f/2 from the early seventies.
I would suggest that those that say that there is no perceivable difference simply do not understand.
I would suggest that those that say that there is no perceivable difference simply do not understand.
Jan 9, 2018 22:38:52 #
rdw845
Loc: San Francisco Area
I am tempted to say "more glass," but that is not a good answer. I believe the real reason is that large aperture lenses are more of an optical engineering problem.
I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
Jan 9, 2018 22:56:14 #
alx
Loc: NJ
rdw845 wrote:
I am tempted to say "more glass," but that is not a good answer. I believe the real reason is that large aperture lenses are more of an optical engineering problem.
I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
Actually, a combination of both. That faster lens needs more glass area to pull the light in. That greater area needs more engineering to pull all the extra light in and more elements (glass) to focus the extra light. The extra elements need increasingly sophisticated design, coatings, choice of glass materials, etc. to counteract fringing and other issues. Theoretically, we could all walk around with pinhole cameras that cost next to nothing, but the limitations would be severe. IF someone could come up with a 100% opaque material to put a microscopic pinhole in that was 1 molecule thick, you could overcome diffraction caused by the iris, but want to guess how expensive that process would be? SPEED COSTS.
Jan 10, 2018 00:59:13 #
iosa
Loc: Fairbanks, AK
Large aperture lenses make use of material that is closer to the edges of the various pieces of glass. Edge glass is where you are most likely to run into focusing, refraction and diffraction issues. So the glass in fast lenses needs to be either quite a bit larger or needs to be milled with much greater precision than in slower lenses.
Jan 10, 2018 02:43:29 #
nauticalmike wrote:
I could see all of the aforementioned reasons making a lot of sense in the olden days when they would have had to be hand polished and the technology wasn't there to consistently make good quality optically perfect glass, but today can't they pretty much automate the entire process and make perfect glass in as large of a size as they want to, not to mention that they could use strong durable polymers to reduce the weight and cost of the lens bodies if they wanted to?
I was reading an article today about a Canon 1200mm f/5.6 lens. It was a monster, weighed 36 pounds. One of the interesting facts quoted was, it took over a year to grow a fluorite crystal big enough to grind for some of the lens elements. See https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Jan 10, 2018 02:47:55 #
nauticalmike wrote:
Thank you everyone for the information, and especi... (show quote)
And how much would you pay for an Ansel Adams print? a dollar? $5?
Sheesh. Socialist photography.
Jan 10, 2018 04:09:10 #
nauticalmike wrote:
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.
No, this was actually a very good response. I will explain it here.
Glass in lenses must be bubble free as possible to avoid degrading the image quality. So larger lenses require larger bubble free pieces of glass to be used. How difficult or expensive this is today I do not know but a long time ago lens factories were built in floating structures to avoid bubbles in the glass used for the lens elements.
Another thing is that not all of the glass is glass. Like somone did mention here fluorite crystals are used in high end lenses. Those are man made and take a long time to grow. Not only that but they are also more fragile than glass so they need some extra attention in the lens construction to protect them for the future.
I am not saying the sales price of lenses is directly related to manufacturing cost alone. Lens manufacturing is ment to be profitable and very likely there is a different margin for different lenses based on competition and various other factors.
Jan 10, 2018 06:38:44 #
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.
I would love to play with a 70-200mm f 1.8 or f 2.0 but they would cost an arm, a leg, and other important body parts. they would also be heavy as hell.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.