Tech question seeks tech answer.

El Gato · January 28, 2009

Ok, so here is the question, and not knowing a better forum to ask it (if there is a more appropriate forum, please advise and I’ll post it there).

There is probably a very good, non-technical explanation for my question, however, when asked, I could provide the technical answer not the easy to understand answer or example, and my son walked away with the “doe meets headlights” look in his eyes.

What makes the Nikon Nikkor 80 - 400 mm F/2.8 lens, almost four to five times more expensive than a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF zoom-Nikkor lens? I guess the optimal question he wanted an answer to is what’s the difference between F/2.8 and F/4.5-5.6?

Can anyone provide me with an easy to understand and communicate answer to the above question(s)? I’ll be certain to cite my sources and not take the credit, and thanks for helping to restore my stature as my son’s “go to” answer man!

ziggy53 · January 28, 2009

El Gato wrote:

Ok, so here is the question, and not knowing a better forum to ask it (if there is a more appropriate forum, please advise and I’ll post it there).

There is probably a very good, non-technical explanation for my question, however, when asked, I could provide the technical answer not the easy to understand answer or example, and my son walked away with the “doe meets headlights” look in his eyes.

What makes the Nikon Nikkor 80 - 400 mm F/2.8 lens, almost four to five times more expensive than a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF zoom-Nikkor lens? I guess the optimal question he wanted an answer to is what’s the difference between F/2.8 and F/4.5-5.6?

Can anyone provide me with an easy to understand and communicate answer to the above question(s)? I’ll be certain to cite my sources and not take the credit, and thanks for helping to restore my stature as my son’s “go to” answer man!

Give me a second while I remove the text formatting from the original text.

OK, first I would ask that you don't format your text in Word before posting. The text attributes look horrible on the default page style.

There is no perfectly simple answer, so if your son requires a simple answer you may just have to say, "because the best lenses command the best prices."

There is also no "Nikkor 80 - 400 mm F/2.8 lens" that I am aware of and if there were it might be much more expensive still.

I suspect that you may be thinking of the Nikkor 200-400mm, f4 G-AFS ED-IF VR, which is a pretty expensive lens to be sure.

The primary differences are:

AF-S, the drive motor is built-in to the 200-400mm lens while the 80-400mm lens uses the screw drive of the body. The AF motor is also one of Nikon's SWM designs and is both fast and accurate.

Constant aperture, the 200-400mm lens has a constant aperture of f4 through the range. This is a different design from the 80-400mm lens and generally constant aperture lenses provide better images overall. At 400mm the 200-400mm lens lets in twice as much light.

More complicated lens formula with more expensive lens elements. While both lenses are fairly complicated, the 200-400mm has both larger front elements and more advanced designs and more expensive glass formulations.

Candid Arts · January 28, 2009

Well first off, the lens being a f/2.8 means it is a "faster" lens. at f/2.8 the aperture is opening up larger than at f/4.5 or f/5.6. Because it is opening up larger, it needs to be physically bigger. The more physically bigger it is, the more glass is needed (and usually better quality glass). The more glass (and higher quality) the more expensive. Also, not only the fact that there's more/better glass, but because it can do more and is considered a "faster" lens, the companies charge more for it (supply and demand).

What I mean by it's a "faster" lens is that because the aperture opens wider, it therefore let's more light in, so you are able to use faster (see...there's the reference term) shutter speeds. They work GREAT for low light photos, or photos where you want a shallow depth of field.

At 400mm a f/2.8 aperture is physically opening to the size of 142.857mm.
At 400mm a f/4.5 aperture is physically opening to the size of 88.889mm.

For a difference of + 53.968mm (or 60.7%). That's quite a bit of glass.

This might help too (from another post of mine):

Candid Arts wrote:

The aperture is also a big part of the quality and usability of the lens. Aperture is the f/# (f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, etc…) The lower the number the wider (larger) the aperture opens, which gives you more light, and a shallower depth of field (DOF). In tern, the larger the number (f/11, f/16, f/32) the smaller the aperture opens, which gives you less light, and a wider DOF. Lower aperture lenses (f/2.8 or smaller, they can get down to f/1.2) are considered “fast” lenses and are more expensive, but give you more options for shooting and usually better quality images. A lens however (if it’s widest aperture is f/2.8) is sharpest at usually +1-2 stops past it’s widest aperture. EX: if a lenses widest aperture is f/2.8, +2 stops would give you a f/5.6 (where as f/4 is +1 stop, and f/2 is -1 stop).

Tee Why · January 28, 2009

El Gato wrote:

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
What makes the Nikon Nikkor 80 - 400 mm F/2.8 lens, almost four to five times more expensive than a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF zoom-Nikkor lens? I guess the optimal question he wanted an answer to is what’s the difference between F/2.8 and F/4.5-5.6?
<o:p></o:p>!

Usually, a faster lens is more expensive. At f2.8 it will let more than twice the light in as a f4.5 aperture. So if you want to, you can get more than twice the shutter speed. Having a wider aperture also allows for a shallower depth of field.

Also, since when you view the image through the viewfinder, it's with the aperture wide open, so the image tends to be brighter since more light comes through the lens. This may also allow for some cameras to auto focus faster as well.

Lastly, it's just not the aperture difference. More expensive lenses tend to have wider aperture, have better build quality, and often better optical qualities as well.

If one is worth more than the other or not is up to the individual though. Having said that IIRC, the cheaper of the two lenses is still well regarded and will probably do fine for most shooters while the f2.8 version may be for very well off and the working pros.

El Gato · January 28, 2009

Wow, whow, thanks for your rapid reply to my post.

Your reply was a lot less "technical" than my original stab at the answer and much clearer too. I'll have an instructional session with my son, use your explanation and maybe create a couple of "paper" drawings and examples of lens sizes, this should do the trick. Now all I have to do is find a reason why he doesn't need a $7k lens!!!

Thanks once again!! Very much appreciate your time and response.

Candid Arts wrote:

Well first off, the lens being a f/2.8 means it is a "faster" lens. at f/2.8 the aperture is opening up larger than at f/4.5 or f/5.6. Because it is opening up larger, it needs to be physically bigger. The more physically bigger it is, the more glass is needed (and usually better quality glass). The more glass (and higher quality) the more expensive. Also, not only the fact that there's more/better glass, but because it can do more and is considered a "faster" lens, the companies charge more for it (supply and demand).

What I mean by it's a "faster" lens is that because the aperture opens wider, it therefore let's more light in, so you are able to use faster (see...there's the reference term) shutter speeds. They work GREAT for low light photos, or photos where you want a shallow depth of field.

At 400mm a f/2.8 aperture is physically opening to the size of 142.857mm.
At 400mm a f/4.5 aperture is physically opening to the size of 88.889mm.

For a difference of + 53.968mm (or 60.7%). That's quite a bit of glass.

This might help too (from another post of mine):

Candid Arts · January 28, 2009

El Gato wrote:

Wow, whow, thanks for your rapid reply to my post.

Your reply was a lot less "technical" than my original stab at the answer and much clearer too. I'll have an instructional session with my son, use your explanation and maybe create a couple of "paper" drawings and examples of lens sizes, this should do the trick. Now all I have to do is find a reason why he doesn't need a $7k lens!!!

Thanks once again!! Very much appreciate your time and response.

Hey no problem. That's what we are here for.

Doesn't need a $7k lens? HAHAHA! OF COURSE he needs it! If you can find a reason HE doesn't...then I SURE DO! Haha

. Except mine will be Canon and not $7k...so it's like you're saving money!

But I digress. You're welcome for the help.

El Gato · January 28, 2009

First I apologise for the double posting, cat walked across the keyboard and well...

That said, thanks for your reply, it is much clearer and easier to understand than my version.

This makes much more sense and is more easily understood.

Thanks again!

Tee Why wrote:

Usually, a faster lens is more expensive. At f2.8 it will let more than twice the light in as a f4.5 aperture. So if you want to, you can get more than twice the shutter speed. Having a wider aperture also allows for a shallower depth of field.

Also, since when you view the image through the viewfinder, it's with the aperture wide open, so the image tends to be brighter since more light comes through the lens. This may also allow for some cameras to auto focus faster as well.

Lastly, it's just not the aperture difference. More expensive lenses tend to have wider aperture, have better build quality, and often better optical qualities as well.

If one is worth more than the other or not is up to the individual though. Having said that IIRC, the cheaper of the two lenses is still well regarded and will probably do fine for most shooters while the f2.8 version may be for very well off and the working pros.

El Gato · January 28, 2009

ziggy53

Thanks for the advice on both the lenses and the MS Word formatting. I'll skip the MS Word next time (sorry).

I very much appreciate your response and thanks again. As I posted earlier, I just need to come up with a reason other than a mortgage payment, not to get the 2.8 and have him look instead into the 4.5!!

ziggy53 wrote:

Give me a second while I remove the text formatting from the original text.

OK, first I would ask that you don't format your text in Word before posting. The text attributes look horrible on the default page style.

There is no perfectly simple answer, so if your son requires a simple answer you may just have to say, "because the best lenses command the best prices."

There is also no "Nikkor 80 - 400 mm F/2.8 lens" that I am aware of and if there were it might be much more expensive still.

I suspect that you may be thinking of the Nikkor 200-400mm, f4 G-AFS ED-IF VR, which is a pretty expensive lens to be sure.

The primary differences are:

AF-S, the drive motor is built-in to the 200-400mm lens while the 80-400mm lens uses the screw drive of the body. The AF motor is also one of Nikon's SWM designs and is both fast and accurate.

Constant aperture, the 200-400mm lens has a constant aperture of f4 through the range. This is a different design from the 80-400mm lens and generally constant aperture lenses provide better images overall. At 400mm the 200-400mm lens lets in twice as much light.

More complicated lens formula with more expensive lens elements. While both lenses are fairly complicated, the 200-400mm has both larger front elements and more advanced designs and more expensive glass formulations.

El Gato · January 28, 2009

Tee Why...

He gets it!!! Just finished talking with my son, having incorporated all of the input (yours and the other who have replied) into a clear, easy to understand explanation, with some paper examples, and my son understood the concepts and reasons for the differences(s) between f2.8 and f4.5!

Many thanks to you and everyone for such quick responses and input!

Tee Why wrote:

Usually, a faster lens is more expensive. At f2.8 it will let more than twice the light in as a f4.5 aperture. So if you want to, you can get more than twice the shutter speed. Having a wider aperture also allows for a shallower depth of field.

Also, since when you view the image through the viewfinder, it's with the aperture wide open, so the image tends to be brighter since more light comes through the lens. This may also allow for some cameras to auto focus faster as well.

Lastly, it's just not the aperture difference. More expensive lenses tend to have wider aperture, have better build quality, and often better optical qualities as well.

If one is worth more than the other or not is up to the individual though. Having said that IIRC, the cheaper of the two lenses is still well regarded and will probably do fine for most shooters while the f2.8 version may be for very well off and the working pros.

Candid Arts · January 28, 2009

Glad we could help...

So is he getting it?

LiquidAir · January 28, 2009

Big lens elements are expensive for a variety of reasons. Part of that is materials; a 100mm diameter lens blank (lenses are ground from disks of glass called blanks) has 8 times as much glass as a 50mm blank because it is not only twice as big in diameter, it is also twice as think. Also, grinding big elements is significantly more difficult because of the larger area. Finally, the low quantity of lenses made also makes them more expensive. Switching a production line over to produce a particular lens is expensive; for something like the 200-400/4 Nikon probably only does a production run once every couple of years which means they have a lot of capital tied up in inventory. You have to pay quite of bit extra for a lens that is likely to spend a year or more in a warehouse because the sale price has to cover both the interest on the production cost and the the cost of storage.

Ekaj · January 28, 2009

All this great technical information and everyone ignored/glossed over the fact that there is no such lens...

Candid Arts · January 28, 2009

Ekaj wrote:

All this great technical information and everyone ignored/glossed over the fact that there is no such lens...

Haha, it seemed odd (focal length), but I don't know Nikon. And I think there was one reference to that fact.

ziggy53 · January 28, 2009

Ekaj wrote:

All this great technical information and everyone ignored/glossed over the fact that there is no such lens...

Nobody really reads my responses, do they? :cry

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1027877&postcount=2

ziggy53 wrote:

...

There is also no "Nikkor 80 - 400 mm F/2.8 lens" that I am aware of and if there were it might be much more expensive still.

I suspect that you may be thinking of the Nikkor 200-400mm, f4 G-AFS ED-IF VR, which is a pretty expensive lens to be sure.

...

Candid Arts · January 28, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

Nobody really reads my responses, do they? :cry

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1027877&postcount=2

Candid Arts wrote:

And I think there was one reference to that fact.

Does this not count?

ziggy53 · January 28, 2009

Candid Arts wrote:

Does this not count?

OK, I'll count that. At least you didn't have to phone a friend.

Candid Arts · January 28, 2009

ziggy53 wrote:

OK, I'll count that. At least you didn't have to phone a friend.

Hahaha. No life lines used here...

rofl

Candid Arts · January 29, 2009

El Gato, might want to look into this...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=119046

HarveyMushman · January 29, 2009

The f-stop is a ratio: focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the lens' iris, or opening. Denoting it this way gives us a standard by which to compare the light gathering capability of different lenses. So, f/2.8 on a 30mm lens allows the same amount of light to pass as f/2.8 on a 300mm lens. However--remember the ratio--creating an iris of sufficient diameter to achieve "f/2.8" on a long 300mm lens requires significantly more glass than required on the small 30mm lens. More glass = more cost. And more glass increases the challenge of producing good glass, which adds even more cost.

El Gato · January 29, 2009

Thanks so much!! This might be just what I need to pry my son from the 2.8!!

Candid Arts wrote:

El Gato, might want to look into this...

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=119046

Candid Arts · January 29, 2009

That's not to steer him away form the f/2.8, as it is a better lens. If he doesn't think he needs that extra light and "fastness", then yeah, this one will do just fine. The f/2.8 is just so much nicer and can be used in so many more applications.

El Gato · January 29, 2009

I think he is more interested in a car!! Which, might cost me less in the long run. We may split the cost of a 4.5 lens and share lens time. Ah, the saga nevers ends!

Candid Arts wrote:

Glad we could help...

So is he getting it?

Ekaj · January 29, 2009

El Gato wrote:

Thanks so much!! This might be just what I need to pry my son from the 2.8!!

I believe what we have here, is a very intelligent kid.

kid: "Dad, can I have a 80-400 "2.8" lens? It is only $x,000
dad: "What?!? $x,000! That's three mortgage payments!"
kid: "Awww.... But I really need it! Well, I guess I could settle for the 80-400 5.6. It's only $1,500. That is 1/5th the price!"
dad: "Good to see you willing to compromise son. Here is a check."

Just wait until he asks for the Nikon D5x... He will have to "settle" for the D3x...

Candid Arts · January 29, 2009

Ekaj wrote:

I believe what we have here, is a very intelligent kid.

kid: "Dad, can I have a 80-400 "2.8" lens? It is only $x,000
dad: "What?!? $x,000! That's three mortgage payments!"
kid: "Awww.... But I really need it! Well, I guess I could settle for the 80-400 5.6. It's only $1,500. That is 1/5th the price!"
dad: "Good to see you willing to compromise son. Here is a check."

Just wait until he asks for the Nikon D5x... He will have to "settle" for the D3x...

rofl

clap

rofl

Tech question seeks tech answer.

Comments