pricing...

cypilk · Apr 22, 2004

when searching for a lens.. why do some lenses cost about 100-300 dollars while others cost up to 6000! the only difference i see is the zoom reaching up to 600. .. but then some of the 300 zooms are about 200 dollars.. and even some of the 200 lenses are about 1500 +. what am i missing?

drlynn · Apr 22, 2004

The difference in price comes from several things:

1. The more expensive lenses will usually have a wider maximum aperture, like, say f/2.8 on longer zoom lenses vs. f/4.5-5.6 on cheaper models.

2. The construction will be higher quality, eg better glass, more lens elements, metal mounts, etc.

3. Advanced features, such as ultrasonic motors (on Canon, at least, prob. most others as well) image stabilization/vibration reduction, etc.

The $$$$ lenses are considered "pro quality," and will take more abuse and give a wider range of possibilities for use than the cheaper models.

That's not to say you can't take great photos with the cheaper lenses. They are, for the most part, good quality, as long as you know their limitations.

markc · Apr 22, 2004

And then there's lenses like the Canon EF 1200, which I think goes for about $125,000. Those are the kinds of lenses that photographers don't buy; the magazines like Sports Illustrated buy them and sign them out to their most trusted pros.

That's almost twice the cost of my house.

cypilk · Apr 23, 2004

wow..thats expensive

cypilk · Apr 23, 2004

so when a lens says its aperture, its saying the lowest it can go ..like 2.8 ...or 4-5..and..the lower the better?

markc · Apr 23, 2004

cypilk said:
so when a lens says its aperture, its saying the lowest it can go ..like 2.8 ...or 4-5..and..the lower the better?

Yup. You will often see a range on a zoom, as the max it can go will depend on the focal length it's at. It might be f3.5 at 35mm and f4.0 at 125mm.

BTW, since it's a ratio, a lower number mean a wider aperture, so f1.8 is a lot bigger opening than f22.

Big Mike · Apr 23, 2004

Someone once said...You pay 50% of the price for the first 90% of the quality....and another 50% for the last 10%.

There is no doubt that pro lenses are better. The are faster (bigger max aperture), they are more durable, better electronics, they use the very best glass & coatings etc. Better lenses are usually sharper, especially in the corners of the frame.

But the problem is that they cost 50% (at least) more than "consumer" lenses for what is maybe only 10% better quality images. Some people (like pro photogs) want or need that extra 10% quality as well as the durability and features of the pro lenses.

Here is a tip, there are some lenses that are better deals than others. With Canon lenses, the 50mm F1.8 is the cheapest lens but has picture quality comparable with the expensive lenses. Sure there are trade offs, like plastic rather than metal parts but that's why it's so inexpensive. There are lots of sites where you can find lens comparisons...check these out and weigh your options before you buy.

mrsid99 · Apr 23, 2004

markc said:
And then there's lenses like the Canon EF 1200, which I think goes for about $125,000. Those are the kinds of lenses that photographers don't buy; the magazines like Sports Illustrated buy them and sign them out to their most trusted pros.

That's almost twice the cost of my house.

Do you realize that lens would fit my 10D?
Terrific piece of equipment though.
BTW, I'm currently looking to buy a house in SoCal and I've found that even an entry level place that's at all habitable starts at twice the lens price, i.e. $250,000!

markc · Apr 23, 2004

mrsid99 said:
markc said:

And then there's lenses like the Canon EF 1200, which I think goes for about $125,000. Those are the kinds of lenses that photographers don't buy; the magazines like Sports Illustrated buy them and sign them out to their most trusted pros.

That's almost twice the cost of my house.

Click to expand...

Do you realize that lens would fit my 10D?
Terrific piece of equipment though.
BTW, I'm currently looking to buy a house in SoCal and I've found that even an entry level place that's at all habitable starts at twice the lens price, i.e. $250,000!

Yup. With the 2x converter it would be a 3840 on the 10D. :crazy:

I have a nice 3-bedroom colonial with hardwood floors and gumwood trim in a decent part of the city. It's amazing how much real estate varies across the country.

mrsid99 · Apr 23, 2004

markc said:
I have a nice 3-bedroom colonial with hardwood floors and gumwood trim in a decent part of the city. It's amazing how much real estate varies across the country.

Oh sure...rub it in! :wink:

markc · Apr 23, 2004

mrsid99 said:
Oh sure...rub it in!

Heh. Did I mention the deck?

mrsid99 · Apr 23, 2004

markc said:
mrsid99 said:

Oh sure...rub it in!

Click to expand...

Heh. Did I mention the deck?

The deck....you live on a boat?

thebigbillybob · Apr 25, 2004

**** in orange county ca unless u living in like a 1 bedroom shack in santa anna (the so called ghetto of orange county) your paying 400,000+ for a house.... my house aint even 1500 sqaure feet and its valued over half a mil... crazy aint it