View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jun
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 Posts: 54 Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:36 am Post subject: why are lens with wide aperture so expensive? |
|
|
jun wrote:
i am new (or renew) to photography. i had an interest when i was maybe in high school. at that time all cameras were film based. so now i am again into photography via digital.
i have no knowledge about lens and their constructions. i was able to open up several lens - rokkor 50 1.4 and the rokkor 135 f.3.5. and from what i saw there is really not much content - glass & body between the 2 but the price for the 1.4 is higher than the 2.8 on the used market.
most manufacturing process for glass today are mechanical. i doubt it if there are still manual glass grounders inside of nikkor or canon or leitz or zeiss offices.
i have read that a noctilus with an f.7 was sold for several thousands of $. while an f2 was selling at less than $200. i am sure it did not take the manufacturing process 100x longer to produce the f.7 lens.
so my question is why the price scale going exponential as the f stops gets smaller? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SkedAddled
Joined: 19 Oct 2008 Posts: 1442 Location: Michigan, USA
Expire: 2021-08-12
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
SkedAddled wrote:
It's simply a fact of life:
Large-aperture lenses are in high demand, and cost a lot.
This is true for older lenses as well as new; the larger the aperture,
the more it costs to buy. _________________ Craig
Of course I'm all right! Why? What have you heard!?
Canon Digital EOS 5D Mk IV, EOS 50D, Powershot S3 iS
Vivitar 28 f/2.8 OM - Zuiko 50 f/1.8 OM - Tamron SP 28-80 f/3.5 AD2[Favorite!] - Hanimar 135 f/3.5 M42 - Soligor 135 f/2.8 T4 - Tamron SP 60-300 f/3.8 AD2 - Soligor 75-260 f/4.5 M42 - Soligor 400 f/6.3 T4 - Soligor 500 f/8 T2 Cat + Matched 2X TC - Addiction Growing!
This is us -- We drive these -- We're named these |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Joosep
Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 305 Location: Estonia, Tallinn
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joosep wrote:
Strange question...
Take an analogy from anywhere, like cars.
Look at the price difference of a 100hp car and 200hp car. Now look 500hp and 600hp. At top peaks, a small difference needs alot more, its exponential. Mmm.. To give 2 hp more to a small regular car, everyone can do that, to give 2hp more to a F1 car, thats something that needs ALOT of engineering.
Its exactly the same with superfast lenses. The engineering difference in 0.7 and 1.0 lenses is so immense.
Canon has one of the biggest mount, so its easier to produce faster lenses that have a huge rear element. But still on a 50 1.0 Canon lens, the contacts are actually sitting on the rear element.
Or like the fastest M42 lens is the 55 1.2 and the back element is chipped, to fit the aperture pin.
These are the kind of things that boost up the cost.
And glass costs, dont forget it. Curving, putting on coatings and glueing huge elements is alot harder.
As I sayd, its exponential. _________________ The future is analogue.
23 cameras, 25 lenses and counting. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 2441 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
Cost is directly related to product development and manufacturing costs. Not all f/1.x lenses are expensive though, take the 50mm ones for instance.
Fast lenses ie. larger aperture lenses are also considerably slower to develop, and require more complex coating technology as well as correcting elements to reduce aberrations, geometric distortion and vignetting. The wider and faster a lens is, the more it will cost.
Very shallow (as in almost non-existent) depth of field is also a photographic trend since a few years back. The more DSLR users who move to full frame the more popular it will be, because with crop factor bodies depth of field is always thicker. The more something is in demand, the higher the aftermarket value for those lenses will be. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RioRico
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 Posts: 1120 Location: California or Guatemala or somewhere
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
RioRico wrote:
Besides what has already been been mentioned, there are these factors:
All glass is not the same. What goes into any but the cheapest lenses has nothing to do with what goes into pickle jars. Lens elements are made of different glasses and optical plastics, some rather rare and high-tech. Some 'glasses' are specially-made crystals that may take a year to grow. Lenses made from such are costly.
The processes for designing and building and testing lenses are not simple. The wider the aperture, the more design and production time is needed. I saw one estimate that each 1/2 f-stop gain requires twice the production time and quadruple the design time (or more).
The fastest lenses from any maker are often their 'flagship' models, and special care is taken to make them as perfect as possible, to justify the much higher prices. Larger and more complex elements also mean more flawed glass being rejected. Quality is not cheap.
Some faster lenses *are* fairly cheap. They may also be not very good, or may be for special uses, or may be for very small cameras. CCTV lenses in f/1 are not so rare nor expensive, but they won't do much good on a standard dSLR. Nor will an ultra-fast fixed-focus X-ray machine lens. (I just got one of those today! Cheap!) _________________ Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, K-1000, M42s, more
The simple truth is this: There are no neutral photographs. --F-Stop Fitzgerald |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enzodm
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:26 am Post subject: Re: why are lens with wide aperture so expensive? |
|
|
enzodm wrote:
jun wrote: |
most manufacturing process for glass today are mechanical. i doubt it if there are still manual glass grounders inside of nikkor or canon or leitz or zeiss offices. |
as a side note, I visited the Leitz plant in Wetzlar, and for microscope lenses (for the top line) manual work is still normal. Aided by machines, verified (manually) thanks to machines, but still hand-based. And glass comes from about one hundred different types (and costs). _________________
Canon 60D, Tamron 17-50VC, Canon 55-250IS, Sigma 50-150/2.8 plus:
Wide: Mir 20/3.5, Kenlock 24/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Yashikor 35/2.8, Mir 37/2.8
Fifties: Voigtländer Color Ultron 50/1.8, Pentacon 50/1.8, Zenitar 50/1.9, Leica Summicron 50/2, CZJ Pancolar 50/2, CZJ Tessar 50/2.8, Industar 50/3.5 , Rikenon 55/1.4, Petri 55/1.8, Helios 58/2
In the middle: Cyclop 85/1.5, Nikon 100/2.8
135s: Tamron 135/2.5, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, Jupiter 135/3.5, CZJ Triotar 135/4, Tamron Twin Tele 135-225
Tele: Soligor 200/2.8, Pentax Super Takumar 200/4, Hanimex 400/6.3, Makinon 500/8
Various: Schneider-Kreuznach Componar 135/4.5, Tominon 105/4.5, Vest Pocket Kodak meniscus, Wray Supar 2"/4.5
Sony Nex 6 plus:
Industar 69 28/2.8, Fujian 35/1.7, Rokkor 50/1.4, Jupiter 50/2, Cosmicar 50/2.8, Industar-22 50/3.5, Leitz Elmar 90/4, Canon Serenar 100/4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
PBFACTS
Joined: 24 Dec 2008 Posts: 569
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:16 am Post subject: Re: why are lens with wide aperture so expensive? |
|
|
PBFACTS wrote:
And you forget the commercial factor
High to developp/manufacture = high price = low volume = no way to redice cost by volume purchase/manufacturing
+
This is the place (high aperture lens) to make profit (= high price = low volume = higher price .....)
As for the car when you buy options or the top of the range : options is the place where car manufacturers makes higher profit _________________ OM USER .. I KEEP/USE:
Om2 sp + T32 (grip/filter/zoom) + T8
+ Zuiko 16mm 3.5 / 55mm 1.2 / 65-200 4/ x1.4
+ Sigma 8mm 4.0 / 14mm 3.5 / 18-35 3.5-4.5
+ Tamron 35/105 2.8
+Tokina 150/500 5.6
+ Kiron 105/2.8 macro 1:1
+ Vivitar S1 90/180 falst field macro
+ 2x Doubler HR7
>>I SELL: OM10 + OM4ti
+ i sell: OM Md1 + Md 2 + Grip PowerPack + charger
+ i sell: OM Zuiko 24mm 2.8 / 28mm 3.5 / 50mm 1.8 / 50mm 1.4 / 50mm 3.5 macro / 35-70 3.6 / 35-105 3.5-4.5 / 75-150 4 / 500mm / 2xA
+ i sell: OM Kiron 28/105 3.2-4.5 / 1.5 converter
+ i sell: OM Makinon reflex 5.6/300 + Spector reflex (makinon) 500mm
+ i sell: OM Macro panagor extender 1:1
+ i sell: OM Sigma 16mm 2.8 fisheye (last version) / 21-35 3.5-4.2 ot/ 28-70 2.8 /1000mm mirror
+ i sell: Tamron 28-70 3.5-4.5 / 28-80 sp 3.5-4.2 / 28-135 sp 4-4.5 / /28-200 3.5 / 35-135 3..5-4.5 / 90mm sp macro 1:1 2.8
+ i sell: OM Soligor 2x doubler / x3 converte
+ i sell: Soligor FisheEye x0.15
+ i sell: OM Tokina 28/135 4-4.6 / 70/210 3.5 (= vivitar S1 v2)
+ i sell: OM Vivitar 28-70 3.5-4.8 / 28-90 s1 2.8-3.5 / 35-70 2.8-3.8 / 55/2.8 Macro 1:1 (komine) / 70-150 3.8 ot (kiron) / 75-150 ot 3.8 (tokina + 2x matched)
+ i sell : OM cosina 100-500 5.6/8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|