Why the price difference?

EDL

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
697
Reaction score
53
Location
Western Pennsylvania
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $2199

EF 200mm f/2L IS USM - $5999

Ok, so the 200mm is f/2 vs f/2.8, but aren't zooms more complex? It would seem to me making a prime and optimizing the glass for sharpness, etc would be a lot easier than designing and building a 70-200mm zoom that takes pics the quality the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM does, yet the prime is 3 times the price?

What am I missing here?
 
According to what I have read, supertelephoto lens production, like that for say a 200mm f/2, requires probably 18 months to literally "grow" the massive rare-earth glass elements used in such a lens. These lenses are very limited production items, and the design has to be slightly re-calculated for each batch of lens elements that are made. Supertelephotos are therefore made in batches, with a certain percentage of the front elements saved for future replacements, since the refractive index of the mega-elements is not "exactly" the same from batch to batch. These lenses are basically hand-assembled by skilled workers, and sold to a limited audience, in small numbers. 70-200/2.8 lenses on the other hand are made by the hundreds--every day the line is running. "Most" pro photographers own a 70-200/2.8; probably fewer than one in a hundred pros will ever buy a 200/2. Yes, zoom design is more-complex, mechanically, but the elements are relatively small, and EASILY-made, quickly, and the lenses are built by the tends of thousands per month. Total production on supertelephotos is very,very small by comparison.
 
Well, here's my $.02 worth. Although .8 doesn't seem like a big difference, at F2 it really is. Just look at the price difference between the 50mm 1.8 vs. 1.4 vs. 1.2 lenses. At 400 mm especially, that is really quite a bit. And even though both are "L"'s, prime lenses are usually just a little sharper.
 
Interesting. So it's not really so much the complexity as it is supply and demand.

I would think in this day and age, they have the glass thing down pretty well.


Oh well, all a mental exercise anyway. Unless I end up hitting the lotto, I'll never own any of those telephotos from Canon anyway.

I was reading about lenses. Apparently Canon also makes/made an EF 1200mm, for a mere $83,000...ouch.
 
Derrel pretty much explains the issues, and it applies to Nikon's 200 mm f/2 also.

To achieve F2 the glass and the lens body have to be much larger, and heavier.
 
The f/2 is a better piece of glass. You gain a full stop of light from f/2.8 to f/2, so it's a big difference, and to many pros it's a $3,000 difference. It's also a lifetime investment. It's amazing what you can do with this lens in low light hand-held, especially with the high ISO cameras of today. I've seen Joe McNally use it for portraits with incredible results hand-held in low light. I have the Nikkor 70-200 2.8, but the f/2 is a whole new level of lens in skilled hands.
 
FYI
There is a video floating around...about how to make a Canon 500mm F4 L IS. I think this is part one...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe just go look at images made with a 200mm f2 when set to F2 and you'll understand.
 
"There's no correlation between creativity and equipment ownership. None. Zilch. Nada. Actually, as the artist gets more into his thing, and as he gets more successful, his number of tools tends to go down. He knows what works for him. Expending mental energy on stuff wastes time."
It is so true Big Mike. Not that I think about myself that high, after a while I have few Items I use and a big problem. What to do with the rest I collected while looking ? :lol:
 
Went and watched all 3 of the Canon lens production videos on the EF 500mm. Ok, I get it now :blushing:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top