Aperture and Focal length

[Tennessee Landscape]

Why would a 300 or 200mm lense at f/2.8 be so much more expensive than one at f/4.5 - 5?

 

[JDS]

The first (main) thing is that it has a larger aperture and lets in more light allowing a faster shutter speed. Another is that it is f/2.8 throughout the entire focal range rather than getting smaller at longer focal lengths.

Lenses with larger apertures typically also are built better all around - better glass, better build, better mount, etc.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

The first (main) thing is that it has a larger aperture and lets in more light allowing a faster shutter speed. Another is that it is f/2.8 throughout the entire focal range rather than getting smaller at longer focal lengths.

Lenses with larger apertures typically also are built better all around - better glass, better build, better mount, etc.

I understand the aperture, but I don't understand why a lenses that shoot with a larger aperture cost so much more than there counterparts....

 

[JDS]

Yeah, I should probably retract my 'main' statement. What makes it cost more is mostly that these lenses are generally built better all around as I said in my last statement...

 

[Big Mike]

The F number is a ratio of the focal length and the diameter of the aperture.

So a 50mm lens at F2, would have an aperture diameter of 25mm.

A 200mm lens at F2.8 would have and aperture diameter of 71mm. A 300mm at F2.8 would be 107mm.

Those large apertures require large pieces of glass, large aperture blades etc. All this makes the lenses big, heavy and expensive.

Also, as mentioned, the build quality is usually higher, with these lenses....which adds more to the price as well.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

Yeah, I should probably retract my 'main' statement. What makes it cost more is mostly that these lenses are generally built better all around as I said in my last statement...

Ok, fine....Still though....Why would I want one over the other as fas as taking pictures is concerned?

 

[Big Mike]

Ok, fine....Still though....Why would I want one over the other as fas as taking pictures is concerned?

Do some reading on 'basic exposure'.

The aperture that you use, is directly related to the shutter speed (and ISO) that you use. So if you want a faster shutter speed (to freeze movement) then you need a large aperture.

Also, the aperture controls the Depth of Field, so if you want a shallow DOF, you will want a large aperture.

 

[That One Guy]

i went thru this same thing when i was looking to upgrade to an L lens.

the 2 offered were:
70-200mm f4.0L @ $550
70-200mm f2.8L @ way too damn much for me to buy and still be married!

the only real difference was aperture. build was the same. the f2.8 just had bigger glass.

so i figured go with the f4.0, keep my marriage, and buy a flashlight for low light situations :mrgreen:

 

[Sandspur]

The answer is that it's a lot more difficult - and expensive! - to craft a lens that large, and all the internal elements as well.

Nikon and Canon only do this using the highest quality glass they can produce, and with extreme attention to every detail of design and construction.

Also, they are very aware that the people most likely to buy these lenses are Pros and advanced amateurs. And we're a pretty picky lot!

After all, our livelihood depends on the quality of our product. In order to meet our standards, the manufacturers are going to produce the highest quality equipment they can ... and they know we're going to pay for the quality of what we get.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

Do some reading on 'basic exposure'.

The aperture that you use, is directly related to the shutter speed (and ISO) that you use. So if you want a faster shutter speed (to freeze movement) then you need a large aperture.

Also, the aperture controls the Depth of Field, so if you want a shallow DOF, you will want a large aperture.

Thanks for the lesson, I understand the relationship between aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and DOF....I think you are missing what I'm asking.....

The answer is that it's a lot more difficult - and expensive! - to craft a lens that large, and all the internal elements as well.

Nikon and Canon only do this using the highest quality glass they can produce, and with extreme attention to every detail of design and construction.

Also, they are very aware that the people most likely to buy these lenses are Pros and advanced amateurs. And we're a pretty picky lot!

After all, our livelihood depends on the quality of our product. In order to meet our standards, the manufacturers are going to produce the highest quality equipment they can ... and they know we're going to pay for the quality of what we get.

Do you think that with my equipment ( listed in my signature ) will be suitable to take some hockey pictures? I was planning on starting with these settings and working from here.....ISO 1600, 1/200

 

[Big Mike]

Thanks for the lesson, I understand the relationship between aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and DOF....I think you are missing what I'm asking.....

If you really understood...why would you ask this?...

Why would I want one over the other as fas as taking pictures is concerned?

I'm not trying to be an @ss....but it seems fairly straight forward that a larger aperture will allow you to use a faster shutter speed...which is very, very important for many shooting situations.

For example, say I was shooting hockey with a 300mm F2.8 lens. My shutter speed might be 1/200. If you where shooting at F5.6, your shutter speed would be 1/50 (1/60)...which would probably make it hard to get sharp shots.

As for shooting hockey, the lighting in arenas is typically bad...even though it looks fairly bright. Plus, the action is quite fast....so to get shots that are not blurry, you need to use a fast shutter speed.

You would be be fairly limited at F5.6...shooting at ISO 1600 will help, but that will mean a fair bit of noise.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

1If you really understood...why would you ask this?...

I'm not trying to be an @ss....2but it seems fairly straight forward that a larger aperture will allow you to use a faster shutter speed...which is very, very important for many shooting situations.

3For example, say I was shooting hockey with a 300mm F2.8 lens. My shutter speed might be 1/200. If you where shooting at F5.6, your shutter speed would be 1/50 (1/60)...which would probably make it hard to get sharp shots.

As for shooting hockey, the lighting in arenas is typically bad...even though it looks fairly bright. Plus, the action is quite fast....so to get shots that are not blurry, you need to use a fast shutter speed.

You would be be fairly limited at F5.6...shooting at ISO 1600 will help, but that will mean a fair bit of noise.

1.Because I want to know, why the difference in price...giving me a lesson in exposure does not answer my question..... 2. DUH 3. Thank you for answering my last question.

 

[Mystwalker]

I think it's pretty tough to answer a "reasoning for price".

If people are willing to pay $1,000,000 for a Snicker bar, I bet that will be the price for most candy bars.

There are people who are willing to pay the outrageous price for the "L" glass so Canon, Nikon (whoever) will charge high prices. I would not be surprised if they make 300% on "L IS" lense compared to maybe 150% on "L" only lense.

Two years ago (before daughter), I would never have ventured into "L IS" price territory. I was happy with Canon and Olympus point and shoots (< $300 per camera). Recently, I happily became one of these suckers who subscribe to Canon's outrageous "L" pricing - not regretting it, but still in sticker shock

I do not think anyone here can really justify to you a reason lense are priced the way they are. You just have to read and look at pictures to make your own decision whether two extra pieces of round glass in a metal tube is worth paying double.

 

[Tasmaster]

Don't higher-end, wide-aperture lenses also have more glass elements? So more, bigger elements, i'd guess they need to be higher quality too (more precise) to function, higher build quality to keep all this working, there you go.

Also keep in mind that the cost increases exponentially as quality increases - this goes for any kind of product really. The better something is, the more effort (=cost) it takes to improve it. That's why you see all these amazing value for money entry-level products, including today's DSLRs, they are there to get people hooked and move to the expensive stuff .

All this in addition to good old fashioned "supply and demand". Are people willing to pay more for a good lens? Yes.

 

[Bevel Heaven]

hey tennesse whatever..... ya wanna know, take your lens to that hocky game and shoot. Look at what you can, I mean can;t do with it inside that semi low light situation.... you are going to see lots of blurred hocky players I would bet. Not much sharp, not much clear.

OK now go rent some big glass..... and take it to the same place and see what you CAN do....... clear hocky players, more stuff in focus - greater DOF.....

You having a jr high school attitude is not going to get anyone to spend the time to explain things to you, even if you are in jr high school.

Just go do some reading on the subject, and try it out for yourself dood.

But to answer your question, even though it already has been..... epensive glass is HUGE glass wise. More materials throughout the lens = more cost. And, on these pro level lens like a $5200 nikkor AF-S 300mm f2.8 VR lens is, every piece is top quality which costs more than production consumer stuff.

You can take this 300mm 2.8 lens and shoot amazingly well with not a lot of light and still get good depth of field etc compared to your little lens.