| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2006 03:52:57 PM · #26 |
As far as I understand, a really, really small hole with no lens at all would give a halfway decent image on the back screen of the 'camera obscura'. That is, incidentally, an Italian/Latin term for a dark room, from which we have the word 'camera' and which was originally applied to some large box-like things with a (teeny weeny) hole at the front and a matt glass screen at the back on which an inverted image of a scene was thus projected. Canaletto's pictures of Venice are so accurate that they are (I believe) used to help planning reconstruction/maintenance of the city's structure.
So where was I? The trouble with the pinhole camera is the pinhole. It doesn't allow enough light through to affect the film surface/sensor. The larger you make the hole, the more light comes through and the less sharp is the quality of the image. This is one of the reasons why you have greater depth of field with smaller apertures. More light enables faster shutter speeds and that is why 'fast lenses' are so called. Once the hole is big enough to make the image blur beyond usefulness, a lense is needed to correct the blur. The bigger the hole and the wider the lense aperture, the more work the optical elements have to do to maintain a sharp image. It may to some extent be true that the optical quality of a 'fast' needs to be good in order that it should work at all, and that that quality further reflects in even better pictures when the aperture is stopped down. Don't take my word for that, though - I'm out of both my field and my depth.
A factor or factors in the price of lenses is, of course, supply, demand and volume of production. The 50mm prime lenses of both Canon and Nikon and a whole lot of others have been produced in huge quantities for a long, long time as standard equipment for sale with the cameras. I would say that their quality/price ratio is still pretty much unbeatable. Beyond those factors of the ghastly world of economics though, you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 04:04:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Quickshutter:
Generally faster=more expensive, but the cheapest cannon lens made (that I know of) the 50mm f 1.8 is practically as fast as it gets, and reasonably sharp, so I'm not sure what makes it different from other fast lenses (besides being prime, no USM, etc) |
The difference is that aperture is a ratio of shutter opening to focal length. In other words, it takes less glass to make a fast short lens than it takes to make a fast long lens. A prime is also much less costly than a zoom.
While you are correct that the 50mm/1.8 is less than $100, it's big brother the 50mm/1.4, just one stop faster, is over $300.
~Terry |
Let's not forget the 50mm/1.2L at $1,600 or the no longer available 50mm f/1.0 |
|
|
|
12/11/2006 04:13:46 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure I buy the argument about diameter, at least in its relationship to speed (which was implied above). The 50/1.8 is only, what 52mm? Both the 17-40 and 24-105 are f/4.0 and are 77mm.
I think the cost comes from the tolerances required over a larger portion of the lens. It also comes from the generally improved workmanship in the build and the extras that come with it. Kirbic mentioned the 50mm/1.4 is $300 compared to the 50mm/1.8, but the 1.4 also comes with USM and a much better build. |
Its about the glass/elements used, good light transfer properties (faster.) High quality glass is more costly to manufacture, and generally they manufacture the lens with weathersealing and better motors/cpu. So a 35-100mm F2 might only have a 77mm front thread size but the glass elements used are high quality:
4 ED elements and 1 super ED |
|
|
|
12/11/2006 04:21:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
becasue we are willing to pay for it, no other reason. |
Actually it is because we are not willing to pay for it.
The demand for and sales volume of primes is a lot less than zooms. Lower volumes = higher costs per unit.
The 50 f/1.8's are an exception because they are in quite high demand for years. They were once sold as the kit-lens that came with the camera. The design is old, proven, the demand is relatively high and with a cheap outer shell you can sell if for < 100 USD.
Canon and Nikon primes are pretty cheap even.
Just look at the primes from Leica and Zeiss.
The Leica and Zeiss are even manual focus only and the advantage over their Nikon/Canon counterparts is not that big anymore. You can see it, but it is a small difference for such a lot of money. There are exceptions like the 100mm Macro from Hasselblad, that one makes you go blind by its sharpness, pity is is made for the H medium format system.
But demand for Zeiss, Leica and Hasselblad is a fraction of the demand for Nikon/Canon primes.
I believe Canon has an article about what is involved to make L quality lenses. The way the glass is produced, how they control quality and how easily a small defect leads to a return to the glassfurnace.
So, if we'd all buy a 85 f/1.4 L for our portraits like we buy f/1.8 50mm's the price might drop by 200 USD.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 05:07:46 PM · #30 |
Yet another reason canon L lenses are more expensive is probably because they don't use glass for all the elements. Some of them are fluorite.
I wonder how long it takes to grow an L lens. Can I get some seeds ?
Message edited by author 2006-12-11 17:10:32.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 05:37:00 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet another reason canon L lenses are more expensive is probably because they don't use glass for all the elements. Some of them are fluorite.
I wonder how long it takes to grow an L lens. Can I get some seeds ? |
But but but but, there is fluorite it my toothpaste right? Do you know how many tubes I can buy for the price of a 16-35 L? Surely fluorite cannot be the reason!
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 05:52:10 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
But but but but, there is fluorite it my toothpaste right? Do you know how many tubes I can buy for the price of a 16-35 L? Surely fluorite cannot be the reason! |
Yup, that's what makes it taste so crunchy!
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 05:57:03 PM · #33 |
I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but it isn't just the glass; the "L" lenses are Canon's professional lenses, and they are built heavier and tougher across the board. The previously mentioned f/1.8 50mm is a plastic-barreled lens, while the "L" lenses use metal. They are heavy and solid and built to take a licking anc keep on clicking. This costs money on the manufacturing end.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 06:04:52 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but it isn't just the glass; the "L" lenses are Canon's professional lenses, and they are built heavier and tougher across the board. The previously mentioned f/1.8 50mm is a plastic-barreled lens, while the "L" lenses use metal. They are heavy and solid and built to take a licking anc keep on clicking. This costs money on the manufacturing end.
R. |
Yup, that was already mentioned. I think the 50 1.8 is also a bit of an aberration(sic) because it is such a simple double gauss design, compared to pretty much all the other asymmetric canon lens designs.
The build and lack of elements helps too, but it is a design that was first done in 1817, so there isn't a whole lot of research costs in there...
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 06:54:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet another reason canon L lenses are more expensive is probably because they don't use glass for all the elements. Some of them are fluorite.
I wonder how long it takes to grow an L lens. Can I get some seeds ? |
But but but but, there is fluorite it my toothpaste right? Do you know how many tubes I can buy for the price of a 16-35 L? Surely fluorite cannot be the reason! |
OK, try building a lens out of toothpaste and see how far you get. |
|
|
|
12/11/2006 06:56:00 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet another reason canon L lenses are more expensive is probably because they don't use glass for all the elements. Some of them are fluorite.
I wonder how long it takes to grow an L lens. Can I get some seeds ? |
But but but but, there is fluorite it my toothpaste right? Do you know how many tubes I can buy for the price of a 16-35 L? Surely fluorite cannot be the reason! |
OK, try building a lens out of toothpaste and see how far you get. |
Toothpastes have "flouride" in them; it ain't the same as "flourite" :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 06:57:10 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
But but but but, there is fluorite it my toothpaste right? Do you know how many tubes I can buy for the price of a 16-35 L? Surely fluorite cannot be the reason! |
Well, toothpaste has floride, not florite... Not quite the same thing.
Edit: Damn, too late.
Message edited by author 2006-12-11 18:57:24.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 07:01:27 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just for thought...
If Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc... produced a 80-200mm f/2.8 lens and sold it for $140, would anyone take the lens seriously and covet that lens? My guess is no. |
How much money do they make in the covet market? I'd imagine if that lens was great it would sell like hot cakes especially in the novice photography market which dare I say dwarfs the professional market. |
|
|
|
12/11/2006 07:46:29 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Toothpastes have "flouride" in them; it ain't the same as "flourite" :-)
R. |
I've been to Florida quite a few times.
Disney World wasn't very good though.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 07:53:30 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
I know it sounds a silly question.
And therefore, there's probably a silly answer!
But what actually makes the lens more expensive.
Does more work have to go into making them, are there more parts, is the glass different?
What?
Somebody enlighten me with an ovbious answer.
Thanks. |
Never mind what anyone else says.
Believe me when I say this...and think about what I am about to say...BUT...there is a conspiracy of sorts against you.
Yes, it's true.
And, YES, you, and only you, in the whole wide conspiracy of the world, are paying for over priced lenses, and the rest of us in our leather chairs, smoking our big cigars, and drinking the latest Merlot are all laughing right now because you are the brunt of the conspiracy, and we the conspirators, are cashing in on your short sightness.
Thank you very much.
Now, off for an overpriced beer at my local tavern.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2006 08:01:27 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
I know it sounds a silly question.
And therefore, there's probably a silly answer!
But what actually makes the lens more expensive.
Does more work have to go into making them, are there more parts, is the glass different?
What?
Somebody enlighten me with an ovbious answer.
Thanks. |
Never mind what anyone else says.
Believe me when I say this...and think about what I am about to say...BUT...there is a conspiracy of sorts against you.
Yes, it's true.
And, YES, you, and only you, in the whole wide conspiracy of the world, are paying for over priced lenses, and the rest of us in our leather chairs, smoking our big cigars, and drinking the latest Merlot are all laughing right now because you are the brunt of the conspiracy, and we the conspirators, are cashing in on your short sightness.
Thank you very much.
Now, off for an overpriced beer at my local tavern. |
It sounds like you've already had some over priced beer!!!!
Mind you, I'm actually drinking Southern Comfort and Mountain Dew at the moment,so I have no room to talk :-)
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 03:04:23 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet another reason canon L lenses are more expensive is probably because they don't use glass for all the elements. Some of them are fluorite.
I wonder how long it takes to grow an L lens. Can I get some seeds ? |
But but but but, there is fluorite it my toothpaste right? Do you know how many tubes I can buy for the price of a 16-35 L? Surely fluorite cannot be the reason! |
OK, try building a lens out of toothpaste and see how far you get. |
Toothpastes have "flouride" in them; it ain't the same as "flourite" :-)
R. |
Brushing my teeth will never be the same again.
Do you think there is a market for L toothpaste with a nice little red ring around the cap?
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 04:18:41 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just for thought...
If Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc... produced a 80-200mm f/2.8 lens and sold it for $140, would anyone take the lens seriously and covet that lens? My guess is no. |
I think consumers aren't stupid. At that price, it may first start out to be highly popular with budget-conscious or newbie buyers, and as it becomes popular, reviews will be made and reviewers will point out that the "cheap" lens is actually golden - and serious buyers will flock in. |
|
|
|
12/12/2006 02:11:57 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Just for thought...
If Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc... produced a 80-200mm f/2.8 lens and sold it for $140, would anyone take the lens seriously and covet that lens? My guess is no. |
I think consumers aren't stupid. At that price, it may first start out to be highly popular with budget-conscious or newbie buyers, and as it becomes popular, reviews will be made and reviewers will point out that the "cheap" lens is actually golden - and serious buyers will flock in. |
Essentially the same thing that happened with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP. It was marketed as (and is) a cheap lens, but its performance is up there with the best of them.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 02:34:10 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Essentially the same thing that happened with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP. It was marketed as (and is) a cheap lens, but its performance is up there with the best of them. |
How could this lens possibly break all the rules of marketing and economics?
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 02:35:58 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
How could this lens possibly break all the rules of marketing and economics? |
Because everyone else is being taken for a ride, obviously.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 03:07:28 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Essentially the same thing that happened with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP. It was marketed as (and is) a cheap lens, but its performance is up there with the best of them. |
How could this lens possibly break all the rules of marketing and economics? |
I have the Tamron and optically, it's great. If it's not as good as the "L", it's pretty damn close. It's definitely no "L" for other reasons. It changes length when zoomed, the barrel rotates when focusing, it's nowhere near as sturdily built and it's certainly not weather sealed.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 03:17:27 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Essentially the same thing that happened with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP. It was marketed as (and is) a cheap lens, but its performance is up there with the best of them. |
How could this lens possibly break all the rules of marketing and economics? |
I have the Tamron and optically, it's great. If it's not as good as the "L", it's pretty damn close. It's definitely no "L" for other reasons. It changes length when zoomed, the barrel rotates when focusing, it's nowhere near as sturdily built and it's certainly not weather sealed. |
I hate hate hate the variable length/ rotating barrel lenses.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2006 03:30:55 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Essentially the same thing that happened with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP. It was marketed as (and is) a cheap lens, but its performance is up there with the best of them. |
How could this lens possibly break all the rules of marketing and economics? |
I have the Tamron and optically, it's great. If it's not as good as the "L", it's pretty damn close. It's definitely no "L" for other reasons. It changes length when zoomed, the barrel rotates when focusing, it's nowhere near as sturdily built and it's certainly not weather sealed. |
I hate hate hate the variable length/ rotating barrel lenses. |
I don't necessarily like that part of it, but it wasn't worth another $1200 to be rid of it. Should my photography become a profitable enterprise, I'll probably reconsider buying the "L". |
|
|
|
12/12/2006 03:36:42 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I hate hate hate the variable length/ rotating barrel lenses. |
I don't necessarily like that part of it, but it wasn't worth another $1200 to be rid of it. Should my photography become a profitable enterprise, I'll probably reconsider buying the "L". |
Does it let you focus manually when in auto focus mode ? That's another nice L feature that I don't think was mentioned. The internal focusing is also a nice feature, for most of them. Particularly if you are using a circular polariser or doing close-up work.
Message edited by author 2006-12-12 15:37:08.
|
|
