# Why are prime lenses more expensive than non-primes?



## hankejp (Dec 8, 2008)

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! (Dec 8, 2008)

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 (Dec 8, 2008)

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 (Dec 8, 2008)

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


----------



## hankejp (Dec 8, 2008)

Battou said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2008)

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


----------



## tsaraleksi (Dec 8, 2008)

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


----------



## Dao (Dec 8, 2008)

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 (Dec 8, 2008)

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 (Dec 9, 2008)

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 (Dec 9, 2008)

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 (Dec 9, 2008)

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


----------



## usayit (Dec 9, 2008)

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 (Dec 9, 2008)

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


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 9, 2008)

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.


----------



## Tolyk (Dec 9, 2008)

Big Mike said:


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


In a very, very lose way  If you look at the 18-200s by Nikon and Canon, they're over charging for these crap lenses.. 700 bucks (canadian) for either of 'em, and they are some of the worst lenses (optical quality and aperture control) in their price range.

I would much rather buy a couple primes for that 700 bucks instead.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 9, 2008)

Tolyk said:


> In a very, very lose way  If you look at the 18-200s by Nikon and Canon, they're over charging for these crap lenses.. 700 bucks (canadian) for either of 'em, and they are some of the worst lenses (optical quality and aperture control) in their price range.
> 
> I would much rather buy a couple primes for that 700 bucks instead.


 
But if there were an 18-200 f/5.6-f/6.3, an 18-200 f/4, and an 18-200 f/2.8, you could bet that the f/2.8 will be more than the f/4 and so on.


----------



## Tolyk (Dec 9, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> But if there were an 18-200 f/5.6-f/6.3, an 18-200 f/4, and an 18-200 f/2.8, you could bet that the f/2.8 will be more than the f/4 and so on.


 But of course.. though, I still wouldn't buy one  (and an 18-200 2.8 would be way too freaking heavy)


----------



## ANDS! (Dec 9, 2008)

Tolyk said:


> In a very, very lose way  If you look at the 18-200s by Nikon and Canon, they're over charging for these crap lenses.. 700 bucks (canadian) for either of 'em, and they are some of the worst lenses (optical quality and aperture control) in their price range.
> 
> I would much rather buy a couple primes for that 700 bucks instead.



The 18-200 (at least on Nikons side) isn't going to win any optics awards put up against other telephotos or primes; but it's not meant to.  For what the 18-200 is capable of doing, it does it pretty damn spectacularly.  It is an ADVANCED kit lens, and your mileage out of this lens (just like the 18-55 kit lens) is going to depend on user ability as much as optical quality.  I have seen some damn impressive shots from the 18-200 from folks who KNOW how to use it, and some awful shots from individuals who want it to work perhaps like their 70-200 F/2.8's combined with their 24-70's.  Just not going to happen.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 9, 2008)

When you consider 'overall quality', you might take into account the convenience or usefulness of a lens.  18mm to 200mm is pretty convenient but of course, compromises have to be made in other areas, to get that range of zoom.

I've read that Nikon's 18-200mm VR is one of the best performing VR/IS lenses.  Testing at almost 4 stops of extra hand-holdability.


----------



## Tolyk (Dec 9, 2008)

ANDS! said:


> The 18-200 (at least on Nikons side) isn't going to win any optics awards put up against other telephotos or primes; but it's not meant to. For what the 18-200 is capable of doing, it does it pretty damn spectacularly. It is an ADVANCED kit lens, and your mileage out of this lens (just like the 18-55 kit lens) is going to depend on user ability as much as optical quality. I have seen some damn impressive shots from the 18-200 from folks who KNOW how to use it, and some awful shots from individuals who want it to work perhaps like their 70-200 F/2.8's combined with their 24-70's. Just not going to happen.


I know. For what it is, it's great. Convienence in a all-in-one lens. Still won't ever buy one 

I did say they were worst optically in their price range. I didn't say they were worse than things like the 18-55. I, personally, would rather invest the 700 dollars into better quality gear.

I just bought a Pentax camera, and their all-in-one lens is actually moderately decent, and more fairly priced at 540ish vs 700. I'm still not going to buy one of those either.


----------



## stsinner (Dec 9, 2008)

Dao said:


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



Good Lord!!  I actually followed your link out of curiosity, and I nearly fell out of my chair!!  A lens costing $25,000!!!!  I wonder if they've every sold one.


----------



## Tolyk (Dec 9, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Good Lord!! I actually followed your link out of curiosity, and I nearly fell out of my chair!! A lens costing $25,000!!!! I wonder if they've every sold one.


 From what I know of it, it requires a 5000 dollar deposit before they'll even ship it to the store that's selling it


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 9, 2008)

Oh...I didn't know it came in green.  


If you want a really expensive lens...Check THIS out.  
I don't know if there are more than one of these...but there was one for sale about a year ago.  It was a lot more than $25,000.


----------



## Lyncca (Dec 9, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Oh...I didn't know it came in green.
> 
> 
> If you want a really expensive lens...Check THIS out.
> I don't know if there are more than one of these...but there was one for sale about a year ago. It was a lot more than $25,000.


 
LOL, at 220lb, make sure you carry the monopod 

As far as the OP, primes are cheaper than zoom lenses at the same speed.  That is why I currently have a 50mm f1.8 and 35mm 2.0 ($450 for both together) vs the 17-55 f2.8 at $1200.

Oh, I'll get the other lenses eventually, but I gotta build up to them.  Unfortunately, I'm not made of money!


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 9, 2008)

Big Mike said:


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


 
MSRP or actual retail? I think the 70-200 2.8 IS was originally listed at $1999, but it goes for between $1500-$1700 generally.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 9, 2008)

That's the price at B&H.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 9, 2008)

Lyncca said:


> LOL, at 220lb, make sure you carry the monopod
> 
> As far as the OP, primes are cheaper than zoom lenses at the same speed. That is why I currently have a 50mm f1.8 and 35mm 2.0 ($450 for both together) vs the 17-55 f2.8 at $1200.
> 
> Oh, I'll get the other lenses eventually, but I gotta build up to them. Unfortunately, I'm not made of money!


 
I believe the 17-55 is an EF-S mount as well. I would really recommend people look into equivalent EF mount lenses for Canon unless they're dead set on staying with the APS-C sensor line.

I know not everyone will upgrade to a FF sensor body, but those looking to invest in a lens that costs $1000, then it's probably a viable option in their future.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 9, 2008)

> I believe the 17-55 is an EF-S mount as well. I would really recommend people look into equivalent EF mount lenses for Canon unless they're dead set on staying with the APS-C sensor line.
> 
> I know not everyone will upgrade to a FF sensor body, but those looking to invest in a lens that costs $1000, then it's probably a viable option in their future.


That was a big issue for many people at first, it's a lot of money for an EF-S lens.  But from what I've heard from people who own it...it really is the best lens in that range.  It's got the wide aperture plus IS and the image quality is said to be of L quality.  On the flip side, I've heard that the IS is prone to early failure.  

As for moving to full frame, the lens will still hold some value, so it could be sold...or just kept with the crop body.


----------



## sabbath999 (Dec 9, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> But if there were an 18-200 f/5.6-f/6.3, an 18-200 f/4, and an 18-200 f/2.8, you could bet that the f/2.8 will be more than the f/4 and so on.



Well, the 18-200 would f/2.8 would be the size of a small business jet... so one might expect them to be a bit more coin.


----------



## Lyncca (Dec 9, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> Well, the 18-200 would f/2.8 would be the size of a small business jet... so one might expect them to be a bit more coin.


 
But wouldn't you just be the coolest person ever to own it?


----------



## Kegger (Dec 9, 2008)

As well as the poorest, lol.


----------



## McQueen278 (Dec 9, 2008)

Canon's small business jet


----------



## sabbath999 (Dec 9, 2008)

McQueen278 said:


> Canon's small business jet



Well... not quite. It ain't 2.8 non-variable aperture and it ain't 18mm on the wide...

It is kinda purdy though.


----------



## usayit (Dec 9, 2008)

I'm surprised the infamous 1200mm Canon L lens hasn't been mentioned.... used ones are a bargain at approx $100,000 USD.


----------



## Battou (Dec 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> I'm surprised the infamous 1200mm Canon L lens hasn't been mentioned.... used ones are a bargain at approx $100,000 USD.



No...but Canon's more infamous 5200mm behemoth has :mrgreen:


----------



## ChrisOquist (Dec 10, 2008)

jenn76 said:


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



:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------

