Why are prime lenses more expensive than non-primes?

[hankejp]

Just curious, why are primes with a 1 stop aperature more expensive that a non-prime with different f/stops. I would think it would be more.

 

[ANDS!]

Wha6t are your for examples. The 50MM F/1.8 is a pretty cheap lens, but the 85 F/1.8 and 1.4 aren't. All depends on certain factors and generally how "intricate" it is to build that certain lens.

 

[Battou]

I'm slightly confused as to your question here.

Are you referring to say.....a 50mm f/1.4 vs an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom or true fixed aperture lanses verses the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom and the like?

 

[Josh66]

If you compared lenses of equal quality, I think you would find that the primes are cheaper.

 

[hankejp]

I'm slightly confused as to your question here.

Are you referring to say.....a 50mm f/1.4 vs an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom or true fixed aperture lanses verses the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom and the like?

Sorry, guess the question wasn't very clear. It seems like a zoom lens, i.e.- 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 are less expensive than say a 300mm 2.8. I'm just throwing numbers out there, I don't know if there's an actual 30mm f/2.8.

Hope thi smakes a little more sense.

Thanks

 

[jenn76]

It's not the "300mm" part that makes it expensive.. it's the 2.8 aperture.

 

[tsaraleksi]

A single aperture is better than a shifting aperture. That's why they are more expensive.

 

[Dao]

Basically it is not zoom lens is less expensive than prime lens. Good Quality lens is usually more expensive than the not so good one.

A faster lens in general is more expensive than the slower lens (fast mean the max aperture is larger to allow more light to pass through at a given time so that shutter speed can be faster to obtain the exposure)

A fast long range good quality telephone lens is usually very expensive such as this one

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

 

[Battou]

Well, That does help. the primes do have just as many stops for the most part, it is in the manor in which the zooms are built that causes the multiple max apertures (the number listed in the lens title) As the zoom factor changes the aperture behaves differently, not being a super tech monkey I can not really explain this. But never the less the zoom does not necessarily have "More" aperture settings.

But as for pricing...ho boy there are a pile of things that enter play one of them being build quality that ANDS! mentioned is but one, but that is between primes to primes. I don't pay much attention to modern lens prices but I think O|||||||O might be on the right track.

 

[prodigy2k7]

A lot of things determine the price. How many glass pieces (elements) in a lens, the more, the more expensive usually. It is also more complex to design and build. The designers gotta be paid too ya know! The build quality is another... Metal vs Plastic etc... Better glass... Correction of CA... The aperture... Normally big apertures require larger diameter lenses...
Ex:
Canon EF 50mm F/1.8
vs
Canon EF 50mm F/1.2L

The F/1.2L version by Canon is of course "L", the F/1.8 version is plasticy, cheaper to make, less glass etc... The F/1.2L is just plain better

 

[Village Idiot]

Compare something like the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L to the Canon 85mm f/1.2L. They're both about 1k iirc.

Canon 50mm f/1.2L about 1k. Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is about $1200.

 

[Big Mike]

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

 

[usayit]

Think about the complexity of design...

Speaking in terms of focal length, a prime lens (50mm f/1.8 for example) is going to be far less complex than a medium zoom that covers a range of focal lengths. As such, implementing a zoom is more expensive than the simplicity of a single focal length prime.

Speaking in terms of max aperture, a fast aperture lens (f/1.8, f/2 etc) requires a complex optical design. As such a lens with a fast aperture is going to be more expensive than a lens with a slower aperture (higher number).

Speaking in terms of image quality, a lens that corrects for things like chromatic aberrations, reduce flare, etc also requires a complex optical design (think Aspherical elements, fluorite, image stabilization, exotic lens coatings). As such a lens that corrects these issues is going to be more expensive than one that does not.

Now put them together...

Since there is no single aspect that determines price, you will find cheap primes and expensive primes as well as cheap zooms and expensive zooms.... there is no single generalization.

[EDIT]
Also another factor I forgot to mention is build quality. You will pay a premium in terms of build quality... USM, metal versus plastic etc...
[/EDIT]

 

[hankejp]

Thank you all for your responses. It was just something that I was thinking about the other day.

 

[Big Mike]

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

For example, a 50mm F1.8 lens is $100. A 50mm F1.4 is $350 and a 50mm F1.2 L is $1200.

Now, the hard part is trying to decide how much better the expensive ones are. Sure they are better...but are they 4 times as good...probably not.

You could say that the first 90% of possible quality cost you so much money...and that last 10% costs you twice as much or more. There are many examples where two similar lenses are fairly close in quality, but the better one costs twice as much.

Some people require the very best so they spend the extra money, many more people just like having the very best, so they spend the extra money. Some people just have too much money....and some people realize that they don't need that last 10% and save a lot of money.