• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do lenses cost so much?

9

996GT2

Diamond Member
Is it simply a matter of supply and demand? Top tier lenses like those the Canon L line can cost well upwards of $2000 per lens, but we all know the elements that make up the lens aren't necessarily 10 times better than say, a $200 lens.

Take two Canon lenses, for example: The 85mm f/1.8 USM and 85mm f/1.2L USM. The former is a $300 lens, while the latter is an $1,800 lens. Yes, the L lens is a stop quicker, but both lenses use a similar optical formula: 8 elements in 7 groups for the f/1.2 L, and 9 elements in 7 groups for the f/1.8. Both lenses have similar sharpness from f/1.8 onwards. So what exactly is in the L lens thaqt makes it worth 6 times more? How much does it actually cost Canon to make an 85L L, anyway?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly



Originally posted by: 996GT2
So what exactly is in the L lens thaqt makes it worth 6 times more?
Click to expand...
if you have to ask then the difference doesn't amount to 6x as much.
How much does it actually cost Canon to make an 85L L, anyway?
Click to expand...
part of it is the limited sales themselves, with less lenses to spread cost over the fixed cost of designing the lens is going to be higher. it also may have a lot more manual labor in it, quality control is likely much higher, the glass may be rarer and considerably more dear (you'd have to ask hoya), etc.
 
Market demand - it wouldn't be very prestigious for a professional photographer to say "I shot this with a $15 f/1.4 85mm lens" now would it? 😉
 
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Take two Canon lenses, for example: The 85mm f/1.8 USM and 85mm f/1.2L USM. The former is a $300 lens, while the latter is an $1,800 lens. Yes, the L lens is a stop quicker, but both lenses use a similar optical formula: 8 elements in 7 groups for the f/1.2 L, and 9 elements in 7 groups for the f/1.8. Both lenses have similar sharpness from f/1.8 onwards. So what exactly is in the L lens thaqt makes it worth 6 times more? How much does it actually cost Canon to make an 85L L, anyway?
Click to expand...

1.8 to 1.2 = more then 1 stop

 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Originally posted by: 996GT2
Take two Canon lenses, for example: The 85mm f/1.8 USM and 85mm f/1.2L USM. The former is a $300 lens, while the latter is an $1,800 lens. Yes, the L lens is a stop quicker, but both lenses use a similar optical formula: 8 elements in 7 groups for the f/1.2 L, and 9 elements in 7 groups for the f/1.8. Both lenses have similar sharpness from f/1.8 onwards. So what exactly is in the L lens thaqt makes it worth 6 times more? How much does it actually cost Canon to make an 85L L, anyway?
Click to expand...

1.8 to 1.2 = more then 1 stop
Click to expand...

Uh no, it's one stop.

The 1/2 f stop scale goes like this, in increments of 1/3 of a stop:
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.5 4
 
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I have been using the term wrong for quite some time now, and no one has corrected me till now.
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I have been using the term wrong for quite some time now, and no one has corrected me till now.
Click to expand...

The mathematical way to figure out if one aperture is a stop below or above another aperture is to see if you can multiply/divide by 1.4 to get to the other number.

For example:

f/2 to f/2.8

2 x 1.4 = 2.8, so f/2 is a stop brighter than f/2.8

f/1.8 to f/1.2

1.8 / 1.4 = 1.28, close enough to 1.2, so f/1.8 is about a stop darker than f/1.2.

This is also why 1.4x teleconverters will make your lens take in one stop less light and 2x teleconverters will make your lens take in two stops less light (1.4^2 = 1.96).
 
to make your math exact, FBB, use the square root of 2, which is approximately equal to 1.414. but yeah, you're spot-on correct with the math and its implications.
 
I can only compare the two 50mm EF lenses I have on hand - the f/1.4 and the f/1.2. Here they are side by side:

50mm

The f/1.2 has a lot more glass - 8 elements in 7 groups with a 72mm filter thread. It weighs (with filter and cap) 710 grams. Cureent B&H price is $1400.

The f/1.4 has 7 elements in 6 groups, and a 58mm filter thread. It weighs (with filter and cap) 310 grams. Current B&H price is $325.

Is the f/1.2 four times better than the f/1.4?, That depends on the photo mission. If you are doing low light work, I would say yes. For ordinary daylight work, I would say no.

There is a significant difference in the heft and feel of each lens in a qualitative sense.
 
I'd guess it'd mostly go into the quality control of the L lens and the much tighter manufacturing tolerances.
I'm not sure what the profit margin on these is, but I heard that lenses were often sold at a loss back in the manual focus days in order to increase competition.
 
Originally posted by: corkyg
I can only compare the two 50mm EF lenses I have on hand - the f/1.4 and the f/1.2. Here they are side by side:

50mm

The f/1.2 has a lot more glass - 8 elements in 7 groups with a 72mm filter thread. It weighs (with filter and cap) 710 grams. Cureent B&H price is $1400.

The f/1.4 has 7 elements in 6 groups, and a 58mm filter thread. It weighs (with filter and cap) 310 grams. Current B&H price is $325.

Is the f/1.2 four times better than the f/1.4?, That depends on the photo mission. If you are doing low light work, I would say yes. For ordinary daylight work, I would say no.

There is a significant difference in the heft and feel of each lens in a qualitative sense.
Click to expand...

How r those compare to the dirt cheap 50mm f/1.8 II ??? Talk about quality of the pic they produce of cause.
 
Originally posted by: corkyg
I can only compare the two 50mm EF lenses I have on hand - the f/1.4 and the f/1.2. Here they are side by side:

50mm

The f/1.2 has a lot more glass - 8 elements in 7 groups with a 72mm filter thread. It weighs (with filter and cap) 710 grams. Cureent B&H price is $1400.

The f/1.4 has 7 elements in 6 groups, and a 58mm filter thread. It weighs (with filter and cap) 310 grams. Current B&H price is $325.

Is the f/1.2 four times better than the f/1.4?, That depends on the photo mission. If you are doing low light work, I would say yes. For ordinary daylight work, I would say no.

There is a significant difference in the heft and feel of each lens in a qualitative sense.
Click to expand...

But, even for the ordinary daylight work, 50mm f/1.2 is amazing as it produces quality bokeh. Same goes for 35mm f/1.4 over 35mm f/2.0. If I buy 50mm f/1.2 L over 50mm f/1.4, it'd be because of its 1. bokeh 2. AF mechanism 3. weather-sealing 4. overall build quality.

 
85mm @ f/1.2 on a 5D... all I can say is wow.

Not that the 85mm f/1.8 is bad... it is an awesome lens for the money. But I have seen unprocessed shots taken a f/1.2 that look almost 3D.

But that lens is the exception. I have a Tamron 28-75 that cost $275 used. No way I could justify $700 more for a Canon 24-70L. The 24-70L is a superior lens.. faster AF, better in low light, but not sure if it is $700 better.
 
Some supply and demand, but remember that lenses are kind of like silicon in that the larger the elements the more difficult it is to create a part without defects. So the f/1.2 is going to cost more at least in part because it uses larger elements than the f/1.8.

Additionally the costs rise exponentially with linear increases in the precision of engineering. That is to say that to make an element that is twice as good costs far more than twice as much. And then there are the fact that the material for at least some of the elements changes in the expensive lenses and the low dispersion and extra low dispersion glass costs a lot more as well. And then there's the stronger construction, the weather sealing, etc. I'm sure there's a higher margin on more expensive lenses too, but there is a lot of diminishing returns in lens building.

ZV
 
Good points! A good illustrative comparison would be the 70-200mm lenses. Both "IS & L", but one is f/2,8 and the iother f/4. The 2.8 lens lists at $1699 while the f/4 lists at $1100.

The 2.8 lens is much heavier and larger because the f/2.8 objective lens is 77mm. The f/4 objective is 67mm. The diameter of the objective gives the lens its light gathering capability.

BTW - the 50mm f/1.2 lens does provide outstanding bokeh as pointed out by Deadtrees, but it is also a tricky lens to use because it has a very shallow DOF at max aperture.
 
bokeh bokeh bokeh... Very rarely when I use a 1.4-2.8 lens i open it up all the way. For professional portraits, people will complain about the unsharpness of one eye vs. the other. However, artistically, if I want only ONE eye to be in focus, then I would open up to 1.4... Remember, DOF really means depth of focus (i know it means depth of field). If you want incredible bokeh, then go with a super telephoto 400mm. When you do portraits, you will get AMAZING bokeh with better focus! Anyways, the f4L vs. f2.8L is a very touchy subject... I have a 5D2 on order, and I'm thinking i'm going to go with the F4L IS because:

1) lighter
2) better edge to edge sharpness (even in corners)

both are weather sealed, i just can't justify the 600 bucks on 2.8... Plus the 5D2 being a great low light shooter, I'll just give an ISO to make up for that missing stop!

Anyways, I hear that the 50 f/1.4 is SHARPER than the 50 f/1.2L in edge to edge sharpness, but lacks the natural saturation and contrast of the 1.2L. Nothing a little PP can't fix! Since we're all SLR's, PP is a must! Otherwise, we might as well go back to our beloved P&S
 
Originally posted by: Kaido
Market demand - it wouldn't be very prestigious for a professional photographer to say "I shot this with a $15 f/1.4 85mm lens" now would it? 😉
Click to expand...
eh, if they are known for the shots they can make, what does it really matter what equipment they use, so long as they got the shot.
 
cost of materials used
cost to make the lenses higher
higher grade of materials used
higher quality
often times they are weather sealed
pretty rugged to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top