just wondering.. the glass cost more to create a low light lense?
Yes, it costs more.
In order to have a larger aperture the lens needs to be able to gather more light. To gather more light the glass needs to have a larger diameter. As the lens size increases the difficulty in manufacturing, and tolerances also increase. The ability to obtain a sharp image at large apertures also demands tighter tolerances.
As light passes through the lens the glass absorbs it. So in order to get more light to the sensor, which is what fast lenses do, you need more glass. More glass = more money.
just wondering.. the glass cost more to create a low light lense?
First of all there is a few material and technical issues that make the cost more at the manufacturing end but in the most part it's the marketing that produces the high cost of the lens. If you believe the lens is worth the money through the value offered then you will pay that enormous amount! Example-Harley Davidson your buying a lifestyle not a motorcycle!
Very true Freezframe, very true. Ditto medications necessary to ensure life/quality of life. Pennies to manufacture, research paid in part or full by the taxpayer through grants, etc., high costs to the downstream needy patient, and profits galore all the way upstream with the insurance companies laughing all the way to the bank! Then sell them in Canada and elsewhere at a hundredth what the US patient pays.
it's not as if they just use bigger pieces of glass to make a 2.8, typically faster glass is just better designed as well. Better focus, better AF speed, more rugged, less distortion, less CA, better color rendition and contrast, etc.
Very true Freezframe, very true. Ditto medications necessary to ensure life/quality of life. Pennies to manufacture, research paid in part or full by the taxpayer through grants, etc., high costs to the downstream needy patient, and profits galore all the way upstream with the insurance companies laughing all the way to the bank! Then sell them in Canada and elsewhere at a hundredth what the US patient pays.
Interesting analogy. Please tell me what country I need to visit to buy lenses at a hundredth what the US buyer pays.
Yeah, you're just paying for that red ring... or, in the OP's case, a high-end Nikkor. If you want VR or IS so much, you'll pay a lot for it. Same with faster glass. But to me, faster glass is worth every penny. Not VR(IS), because I don't have much need for it. But fast glass, yes. Hey OP, sell a few of those lenses and buy a 50 1.2 or whatever it is on Nikon's side. You'll see the difference in IQ.
As light passes through the lens the glass absorbs it. So in order to get more light to the sensor, which is what fast lenses do, you need more glass. More glass = more money.
I understand the 1st part but not the 2nd. More glass also means absorbing light again,isn't it ? Back to square one?
I understand the 1st part but not the 2nd. More glass also means absorbing light again,isn't it ? Back to square one?
When I read that I understood it meant that you need more glass surface area to let more light in and gain that additional speed. That is what makes my fast 2.8 zoom so much larger and heavier than my kit lens. The front filter size is huge because of that larger light-gathering opening. It is not just the glass quality but the total area of the glass. For each element.
Fast primes are one thing, fast zooms are another level. Now you have to take all that extra size and weight, add a bunch of tiny moving parts, and choreograph optical perfection throughout the zoom range. And then they pile on an ultrasonic focusing motor and a image stabilization system, all useful to me, but adding to the complexity and cost. Now the size, weight, and price of the lens rivals the camera itself. But it performs, so we buy it.
An interesting read for the OP might be 'EF lens work 3' (or other makers equivalent if such exist) which gives some background info about the technical challenges that've been tackled. I found the bit related to the 400 f4 DO partic interesting.
Having worked in r&d I can say the comments about drug companies are pretty off base.
Totally agree. I am no apologist for Big Pharma, but it is enormously expensive to develop new therapeutics, and there is little government support beyond (perhaps) some of the basic science research in academia.
You can do very well in most situations in photography with modest equipment, the problems occur when you want to push, like say low light situations or birding or sports.
Also agree. There are many of us who like buying cool equipment just for the sake of having it (mea culpa), but it does have its place. There is no substitute for the right lens under difficult conditions.
I suspect another reason for the high cost of, say a 400/2.8 lens is that a relatively small number of units are sold and so lack true economies of scale.
Totally agree. I am no apologist for Big Pharma, but it is enormously expensive to develop new therapeutics, and there is little government support beyond (perhaps) some of the basic science research in academia.
Also agree. There are many of us who like buying cool equipment just for the sake of having it (mea culpa), but it does have its place. There is no substitute for the right lens under difficult conditions.
I suspect another reason for the high cost of, say a 400/2.8 lens is that a relatively small number of units are sold and so lack true economies of scale.
I agree with both your points. The Pharma case is not an appropriate parallel. Should one want to criticize pharma it might be because they do NOT invest in products without mass market application. So when you have a rare disease - like an addiction to fast glass - Big Pharma will not help you.
Canon and Nikon, on the other hand, try to cover all possible bases. They provide solutions for all possible requirements, however bizarre or small the market actually is. We are lucky in photography to have two big boys competing. In other markets, eg PC, we have to take whatever Microsoft offers (go apple, go)
As a business guy myself I very much doubt that Nikon/Canon exotic productions are ever profitable in themselves. They charge what they think the market might bear but I doubt this covers the cost of development and production. Most "fast" glass is incredibly complicated, just look at the number of elements. Their market pitch is the tried and trusted practice of market leaders to maximize shelf-space - no matter what your wish is we can provide - and thereby squeezing all competitors into the equivalent of the arms race that killed the old Soviet Union.
Comments
Yes, it costs more.
In order to have a larger aperture the lens needs to be able to gather more light. To gather more light the glass needs to have a larger diameter. As the lens size increases the difficulty in manufacturing, and tolerances also increase. The ability to obtain a sharp image at large apertures also demands tighter tolerances.
This means it cost us more.
Sam
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
First of all there is a few material and technical issues that make the cost more at the manufacturing end but in the most part it's the marketing that produces the high cost of the lens. If you believe the lens is worth the money through the value offered then you will pay that enormous amount! Example-Harley Davidson your buying a lifestyle not a motorcycle!
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Link to my Smugmug site
Yes me too! I want a new 85L for pennies!
www.tednghiem.com
Its like anything else if we find value in a name such as "L"-we are all guilty of that glass syndrome.
I understand the 1st part but not the 2nd. More glass also means absorbing light again,isn't it ? Back to square one?
When I read that I understood it meant that you need more glass surface area to let more light in and gain that additional speed. That is what makes my fast 2.8 zoom so much larger and heavier than my kit lens. The front filter size is huge because of that larger light-gathering opening. It is not just the glass quality but the total area of the glass. For each element.
Fast primes are one thing, fast zooms are another level. Now you have to take all that extra size and weight, add a bunch of tiny moving parts, and choreograph optical perfection throughout the zoom range. And then they pile on an ultrasonic focusing motor and a image stabilization system, all useful to me, but adding to the complexity and cost. Now the size, weight, and price of the lens rivals the camera itself. But it performs, so we buy it.
pp
Flickr
Totally agree. I am no apologist for Big Pharma, but it is enormously expensive to develop new therapeutics, and there is little government support beyond (perhaps) some of the basic science research in academia.
Also agree. There are many of us who like buying cool equipment just for the sake of having it (mea culpa), but it does have its place. There is no substitute for the right lens under difficult conditions.
I suspect another reason for the high cost of, say a 400/2.8 lens is that a relatively small number of units are sold and so lack true economies of scale.
I agree with both your points. The Pharma case is not an appropriate parallel. Should one want to criticize pharma it might be because they do NOT invest in products without mass market application. So when you have a rare disease - like an addiction to fast glass - Big Pharma will not help you.
Canon and Nikon, on the other hand, try to cover all possible bases. They provide solutions for all possible requirements, however bizarre or small the market actually is. We are lucky in photography to have two big boys competing. In other markets, eg PC, we have to take whatever Microsoft offers (go apple, go)
As a business guy myself I very much doubt that Nikon/Canon exotic productions are ever profitable in themselves. They charge what they think the market might bear but I doubt this covers the cost of development and production. Most "fast" glass is incredibly complicated, just look at the number of elements. Their market pitch is the tried and trusted practice of market leaders to maximize shelf-space - no matter what your wish is we can provide - and thereby squeezing all competitors into the equivalent of the arms race that killed the old Soviet Union.