Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why are fast lenses so expensive?

  • 14-12-2012 9:57pm
    #1
    dnme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,429 ✭✭✭


    Why are fast lenses so expensive?

    Once we go from f4 to f2.8, the price doubles, If we go to f1.4 or 1.2 the price trebbles or quadruples. Why? Is it just a case of a wider hole in the lens (aperture) or does the glass have to be re-engineered to cope with wider apertures?

    Is branding a big factor? Is "L" a great marketing trick or do Canon L's really make that much of a difference. What exactly is the difference between an "L" and a non "L" lens in terms of glass and innards ?


Comments

  • #2
    Corkbah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,668 ✭✭✭Corkbah


    bokeh !!


  • #3
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    The number of glass elements and the quality of the build is the difference and explains the cost.


  • #4
    gloobag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭gloobag


    dnme wrote: »
    What exactly is the difference between an "L" and a non "L" lens in terms of glass and innards ?

    Sharpness, better colour and contrast rendition, less chromatic aberration, higher quality of glass elements, better build quality and sometimes weather sealing, (sometimes)faster/smoother/quieter AF. For zooms, a persistent wide aperture like f/2.8 across the zoom range would also add some bank to the price I'd imagine.


  • #5
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    Cost to produce optically near perfect glass, polish and grind to shape. Larger aperture bigger front element.


  • #6
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,878 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    if you have an f2.8 on a 50mm, that means the aperture has to open to 18mm wide.
    an f1.4 lens has to open to 36mm. the surface area of the glass involved is four times the size, which means the volume of glass is probably six or eight times as much.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    dnme wrote: »
    Is branding a big factor? Is "L" a great marketing trick or do Canon L's really make that much of a difference. What exactly is the difference between an "L" and a non "L" lens in terms of glass and innards ?


    I'd say it's a mix of both, to be honest. L lenses are a lot better than non L's in my experience, but I'd imagine the cost to produce the lenses is somewhere along the same lines. Can't imagine the cost of creating an L and non L are as far apart as the RRPs would lead us to believe (though obviously I've no actual insight into Canon's costs, and I'm merely guessing).

    As far as I'm lead to believe, the cost of moving from f/4 to f/2.8, for example, is fairly minimal if the lens changes aperture throughout the focal range. As far as I understand, it costs more and requires a lot more effort to make lenses (of any aperture) that can maintain a single aperture value throughout their entire focal range.

    In other words, it costs more to create a 24-105 f/4 than it would to create a 24-105 f/4 - f/5.6 (a lens that's fastest aperture would decrease as you zoom).

    I could be just spouting nonsense, but I'm fairly certain that's true.


Advertisement