billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is not even $400.00 on some lenses. Where are you getting your information? Really, $5000.00? on what lens?

blackest Loc: Ireland

nice video but the swipe at Ibis v lens stabilisation was a bit off, Tailored to a particular lens v 1 setting in body , clearly better but IBIS is adjusted for each lens as well.

You could just as well say getting an uber is better than being raped and murdered in a black cab it's the same kind of comparison.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I often wondered the same thing....it seems there's an exponential jump in price as the diameter of the lens elements increases...but I think a lot has to do with much more than technical considerations (manufacturing steps, care of assembly, precision instruments, exotic glass elements, weatherproofing, etc.)...the enthusiast/ pro photographer market is much smaller than the consumer market. If these $5000+ lenses could be manufactured to consumer scale in quantity, then we could see the price come down to, say a more affordable price of $1000. But if the lens manufacturers made let's say a beast of a lens 105mm f/1.4 lens in consumer quantities (500,000+), they would lose money because they would be sitting on the shelves and not moving as quickly as the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens that is packaged with a D3400 or Rebel T6 that the average Joe or Mary would buy.

How many enthusiasts want to carry around the Sigma torpedo (35 lbs - GASP!) vs. the Nikon 200-500, just a 2 stops slower and 1/25 the price?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Because it isn't easy getting that last little extra bit of light through the lens. It takes good design and good (large) glass, and that costs money. If image quality is what you want in a 50mm lens, you're better off with the f/1.8. My 28-300mm has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 at 300mm, but the $2,800 70-200mm f/2.8 can have an f/2.8 aperture throughout its entire zoom range. That takes money. Raising ISO a bit can save you a fortune.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

We have a stronger copper lobby than Canada, unfortunately.

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

Talking with Canon techs they recommended the 50mm 1.8 or the “Nifty Fifty” as their best deal for a back up lens for the bag. They said there is no noticeable difference between that lens and the 1.4 & 1.2 except money. I had a 24-70mm that would not auto focus at dusk during a wedding. The Nifty Fifty saved my bacon.

I have most of the L Glass fast lenses, but with external lighting you really don’t need them as f-8 and f-11 is where you want to be or the sweet spot of the lens. And cheaper so called “day light” lenses with f-4.5 to f-5.6 can be used effectively. Why pay $5000 for a lens that you only use less than 10% of the time.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The Canon 24-70 2.8 can almost see in the dark, I find it hard to believe that it could not find focus at dusk and the 50 1.8 could. There is only one stop difference, should not have made a difference.

Hank Radt

Nikonites: check out this new one: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f%252f4e-tc1.4-fl-ed-vr.html?icid=img_en_us:hp:banner:1:lens:180-400:010818:wwa

Only $12k

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Larger aperture lenses require more glass (expensive) more diameter for the larger glass and larger leaves on the iris, heavier mechanics to move the larger iris, beefier mechanics to move the larger autofocus mechanism required for the larger diameter lens, stricter specs to deal with the light etc. With all of the additional materials, labor, etc. of course the lens is going to be more expensive. I have a 50mm f/1.4 full frame autofocus lens and was considerably more (actually about twice as much) as my wife's 50mm f/1.8 lens. But, it is considerably sharper, better low light capability, tighter depth of field, etc. Her lens works fine until you get into deep shadow, evening light or other situations. I can sit and keep decent shutter speeds with a 100 ISO where she can take a similar shot but may have to move up to 300 or 400 iso for a similar shot. It isn't necessarily a deal killer but I can enlarge considerably more from the same shot. Plus, my DOF is better controlled.. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with an f/1.8 lens but my 1.2 gives me tighter DOF and better control... Having said that, the DOF may be too shallow at f/1.2 so I may have to stop down some... so what? at least I have the option.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Better to have & not need than to need and not have.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I wonder if the OP is very confused by now. He does not seem to understand that we get what we pay for and that M&M Chocolate is not better that Godiva. We simply have to pay for quality.
Talking about the 50mm f1.4 and the f1.8. This is something where controversy on what to buy exists. The difference is hardly 3/4 stops and still the f1.4 is way higher in price. I have an old 50mm f1.4 S from the early 70's that had to be AI converted so that I could use it with my digital cameras. A modern 50mm f1.8 is pretty sharp for most uses and it is cheaper. It does its part in low light and it does it very well.
When we go into rare earth, fluoride, Nano glass, low dispersion and sophisticated focusing motors is when the price skyrocket. This is understandable since more precise tolerances, better workmanship and more expensive components are needed to manufacture the lens among other things.
Today the technology used to manufacture lenses is available to all lens companies the difference in quality is the result of better tolerances and the use of more expensive materials, besides a pristine quality control. In spite of all this there are reasonably priced lenses that perform as well as professional lenses and I believe Sigma has proven that.
My advise to you is to buy the best that you can afford when it comes to optics. If you do not care about quality or cannot see the difference then stick to what you are buying now.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

A specialist lens with its own specially built elements, either has to be hand built due to the small numbers which will be built, or has to have expensive machinery made or specially adapted to make the small numbers of lenses to be made. In either case, a lot of the process is by hand, not machine. Plus I suspect more testing is carried out with expensive lenses.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Aren’t we all average Joe or Mary’s?

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Just because one buys a middle of the road lens does not mean they don’t care about quality

Gorzek

New Lens today (1/9/18) for sports and wildlife photographers. Check Nikons web site. - Don Gorzek.
FYI-
The New AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR Lens
Nikon will showcase the new AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR, a professional-level super-telephoto zoom lens designed for photographing sports and wildlife in stunning clarity. This incredibly versatile addition to the NIKKOR lineup has been updated with the latest Nikon lens technologies for enhanced performance and image quality. Additionally, this new lens features Nikon’s first ever built-in 1.4x teleconverter, and combines the use of a fluorite lens element and durable magnesium alloy construction for decreased weight and improved balance.
The AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR lens will be available in March 2018 for a suggested retail price of $12,399.95*. For more information about this NIKKOR lens and other Nikon products, please visit www.nikonusa.com.