Why are prime lenses more expensive than non-primes?

Tolyk · Dec 9, 2008

Big Mike said:
In a very loose way...you can judge the overall 'quality' of a lens by it's price.

In a very, very lose way

If you look at the 18-200s by Nikon and Canon, they're over charging for these crap lenses.. 700 bucks (canadian) for either of 'em, and they are some of the worst lenses (optical quality and aperture control) in their price range.

I would much rather buy a couple primes for that 700 bucks instead.

Village Idiot · Dec 9, 2008

Tolyk said:
In a very, very lose way If you look at the 18-200s by Nikon and Canon, they're over charging for these crap lenses.. 700 bucks (canadian) for either of 'em, and they are some of the worst lenses (optical quality and aperture control) in their price range.

I would much rather buy a couple primes for that 700 bucks instead.

But if there were an 18-200 f/5.6-f/6.3, an 18-200 f/4, and an 18-200 f/2.8, you could bet that the f/2.8 will be more than the f/4 and so on.

Tolyk · Dec 9, 2008

Village Idiot said:
But if there were an 18-200 f/5.6-f/6.3, an 18-200 f/4, and an 18-200 f/2.8, you could bet that the f/2.8 will be more than the f/4 and so on.

But of course.. though, I still wouldn't buy one

(and an 18-200 2.8 would be way too freaking heavy)

ANDS! · Dec 9, 2008

Tolyk said:
In a very, very lose way If you look at the 18-200s by Nikon and Canon, they're over charging for these crap lenses.. 700 bucks (canadian) for either of 'em, and they are some of the worst lenses (optical quality and aperture control) in their price range.

I would much rather buy a couple primes for that 700 bucks instead.

The 18-200 (at least on Nikons side) isn't going to win any optics awards put up against other telephotos or primes; but it's not meant to. For what the 18-200 is capable of doing, it does it pretty damn spectacularly. It is an ADVANCED kit lens, and your mileage out of this lens (just like the 18-55 kit lens) is going to depend on user ability as much as optical quality. I have seen some damn impressive shots from the 18-200 from folks who KNOW how to use it, and some awful shots from individuals who want it to work perhaps like their 70-200 F/2.8's combined with their 24-70's. Just not going to happen.

Big Mike · Dec 9, 2008

When you consider 'overall quality', you might take into account the convenience or usefulness of a lens. 18mm to 200mm is pretty convenient but of course, compromises have to be made in other areas, to get that range of zoom.

I've read that Nikon's 18-200mm VR is one of the best performing VR/IS lenses. Testing at almost 4 stops of extra hand-holdability.

Tolyk · Dec 9, 2008

ANDS! said:
The 18-200 (at least on Nikons side) isn't going to win any optics awards put up against other telephotos or primes; but it's not meant to. For what the 18-200 is capable of doing, it does it pretty damn spectacularly. It is an ADVANCED kit lens, and your mileage out of this lens (just like the 18-55 kit lens) is going to depend on user ability as much as optical quality. I have seen some damn impressive shots from the 18-200 from folks who KNOW how to use it, and some awful shots from individuals who want it to work perhaps like their 70-200 F/2.8's combined with their 24-70's. Just not going to happen.

I know. For what it is, it's great. Convienence in a all-in-one lens. Still won't ever buy one

I did say they were worst optically in their price range. I didn't say they were worse than things like the 18-55. I, personally, would rather invest the 700 dollars into better quality gear.

I just bought a Pentax camera, and their all-in-one lens is actually moderately decent, and more fairly priced at 540ish vs 700. I'm still not going to buy one of those either.

stsinner · Dec 9, 2008

Dao said:
http://www.adorama.com/SG200500DEOS.html

Good Lord!! I actually followed your link out of curiosity, and I nearly fell out of my chair!! A lens costing $25,000!!!! I wonder if they've every sold one.

Tolyk · Dec 9, 2008

stsinner said:
Good Lord!! I actually followed your link out of curiosity, and I nearly fell out of my chair!! A lens costing $25,000!!!! I wonder if they've every sold one.

From what I know of it, it requires a 5000 dollar deposit before they'll even ship it to the store that's selling it

Big Mike · Dec 9, 2008

Oh...I didn't know it came in green.

If you want a really expensive lens...Check THIS out.
I don't know if there are more than one of these...but there was one for sale about a year ago. It was a lot more than $25,000.

Lyncca · Dec 9, 2008

Big Mike said:
Oh...I didn't know it came in green.

If you want a really expensive lens...Check THIS out.
I don't know if there are more than one of these...but there was one for sale about a year ago. It was a lot more than $25,000.

LOL, at 220lb, make sure you carry the monopod

As far as the OP, primes are cheaper than zoom lenses at the same speed. That is why I currently have a 50mm f1.8 and 35mm 2.0 ($450 for both together) vs the 17-55 f2.8 at $1200.

Oh, I'll get the other lenses eventually, but I gotta build up to them. Unfortunately, I'm not made of money!

Village Idiot · Dec 9, 2008

Big Mike said:
The 85mm F1.2 L is actually $1800 :shock:

MSRP or actual retail? I think the 70-200 2.8 IS was originally listed at $1999, but it goes for between $1500-$1700 generally.

Big Mike · Dec 9, 2008

That's the price at B&H.

Village Idiot · Dec 9, 2008

Lyncca said:
LOL, at 220lb, make sure you carry the monopod

As far as the OP, primes are cheaper than zoom lenses at the same speed. That is why I currently have a 50mm f1.8 and 35mm 2.0 ($450 for both together) vs the 17-55 f2.8 at $1200.

Oh, I'll get the other lenses eventually, but I gotta build up to them. Unfortunately, I'm not made of money!

I believe the 17-55 is an EF-S mount as well. I would really recommend people look into equivalent EF mount lenses for Canon unless they're dead set on staying with the APS-C sensor line.

I know not everyone will upgrade to a FF sensor body, but those looking to invest in a lens that costs $1000, then it's probably a viable option in their future.

Big Mike · Dec 9, 2008

I believe the 17-55 is an EF-S mount as well. I would really recommend people look into equivalent EF mount lenses for Canon unless they're dead set on staying with the APS-C sensor line.

I know not everyone will upgrade to a FF sensor body, but those looking to invest in a lens that costs $1000, then it's probably a viable option in their future.

That was a big issue for many people at first, it's a lot of money for an EF-S lens. But from what I've heard from people who own it...it really is the best lens in that range. It's got the wide aperture plus IS and the image quality is said to be of L quality. On the flip side, I've heard that the IS is prone to early failure.

As for moving to full frame, the lens will still hold some value, so it could be sold...or just kept with the crop body.

sabbath999 · Dec 9, 2008

Village Idiot said:
But if there were an 18-200 f/5.6-f/6.3, an 18-200 f/4, and an 18-200 f/2.8, you could bet that the f/2.8 will be more than the f/4 and so on.

Well, the 18-200 would f/2.8 would be the size of a small business jet... so one might expect them to be a bit more coin.