What is the Difference in Lenses

[illbowhunter]

I am a newbie and confused on why some lenses are alot more expensive.

The 2 lenses I am looking at are:

Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII ($750) and
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AFS VRII ($2200)

Why is the 70-200 almost $1500 more? Is it worth spending the extra $$$s?

 

[PhotoXopher]

f/2.8 (constant) vs a variable f/3.5-5.6, better build, and yes - it's worth it, but it depends on your needs/wants.

I can't afford/justify it so I went with the Sigma version (no VR) for $799 and haven't looked back.

 

[gsgary]

Well worth the money, the 70-200 will get shots that the 18-200 has no chance of getting

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

You might also ask the difference between a $15,000 Hyundai and a $70,000 BMW. Some things are just better and cost more.

 

[illbowhunter]

f/2.8 (constant) vs a variable f/3.5-5.6, better build, and yes - it's worth it, but it depends on your needs/wants.

I can't afford/justify it so I went with the Sigma version (no VR) for $799 and haven't looked back.

Thanks. That is some of the information I was looking for.:thumbup:

 

[illbowhunter]

Welcome to the forum.

You might also ask the difference between a $15,000 Hyundai and a $70,000 BMW. Some things are just better and cost more.

I was wondering WHAT made it better.

 

[NateWagner]

well, basically it is
1. speed - it is able to let more light in, which means faster shutter speeds in lower light.
2. build quality - this is more of a professional lens, whereas the other is more of a consumer level lens. Basically meaning that typically in a consumer lens it has a lot more plastic and less metal components etc. Often the pro level lenses are weather sealed. Basically they are built to handle a great deal more abuse.
3. Image quality (IQ) - typically the pro level lenses have a higher image quality than the consumer lenses. This can particularly be seen in areas such as chromatic aberration (CA) and of course the sharpness in various areas of the image.
4. Focusing Speed - these higher level lenses typically focus much more quickly and accurately than the consumer level lenses.

This is not to say that the consumer level lenses are bad, but they just aren't as good as the more pro level. Is it worth it? to many people the answer is yes. To others it might not be depending on their use for the lens.

 

[Goontz]

I was wondering WHAT made it better.

The analogy is still valid. Could you explain what makes the BMW 'better' than the Hyundai?

PhotoX and Nate have layed it out pretty accurately, though. The value and worth of each option really depends on who is buying and using them. The difference would be worth it to me, I know. Only you could decide if it'd be worth it for you.

 

[Big Mike]

The analogy is still valid. Could you explain what makes the BMW 'better' than the Hyundai?

Here is another comparison;
Why does the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L cost $1300 when you can get a Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 for about $800? Add IS to the Canon version and it's $1700.

I don't mean to be facetious, but some of the difference is just that top of the line gear costs more simply because they can change that much.

 

[pbelliard]

[/QUOTE]I don't mean to be facetious, but some of the difference is just that top of the line gear costs more simply because they can change that much.[/QUOTE]

Mike would you be kind enough to elaborate on "they can change that much"? Not sure what that means.

Is that statement due to the functions of the lenses?

Does heavier mean better? {My cousin has a 24-70 canon EF which is heavier compared to my 18-55 that came with my T1i}

Sorry for the naive questions. I am just getting my foot in the door.

Thank You for your time.

 

[Felix 222]

the 18-200mm can replace a kit lens as a GREAT all around lens.

the 70-200mm has less zoom range BUT has much better low light performance. the 2.8 allows the camera to get more light while zoomed in = better shots for sports and/or low light

 

[vh5150]

maybe Mike means "charge" that much because it says Canon!!

 

[NateWagner]

Yeah, at that point 2,8 zooms the difference is typically rather minute (I.E. both will have excellent optical quality, build quality etc. There is typically a difference, though it's smaller.

Also, canon/nikon lenses tend to hold their value better, which helps make the extra money at the beginning more worthwhile in the end.

 

[philaw123]

And noobs must learn some manners and pay respect to site moderators. All hail Big Mike

 

[KmH]

I don't mean to be facetious, but some of the difference is just that top of the line gear costs more simply because they can change that much.

The cost to manufacture the lens, both materials and labor, is substantially higher, and because the higher cost limits the number of units sold, that manufacturing expense cannot be spread across as many units made.

In reality, their profit margin on the more expensive lenses is probably much smaller than the profit margin on the entry level kit lenses.