Why are some lenses more expensive than others? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why are some lenses more expensive than others?

welly

06-12-2008, 18:00

Taking the 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 for example. The 50mm is £75 new and the 85mm is £250 new.

What makes the 85mm so much more expensive? I'm guessing they make less of the 85mm but there must be more to it than that. The 85 and 50mm have the same number of lens elements although the 85mm lenses are larger. Does that make for a more expensive lens? Or have they just made the 50mm particularly cheap, perhaps?

Anyone any insights?

chris321

06-12-2008, 18:06

Well the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the best value lenses for the money, so anything compared to it could seem quite pricey! I'm really not sure, but I THINK it's all about the maximum aperture. The 'f/1.8' bit means the aperture = the focal length (f) divided by 1.8. The larger the focal length (if you keep the 1.8 the same), the larger the aperture gets, so you need a larger diameter tube for the lens, which means bigger elements, more glass, more expenses etc. Well that's how I understand it anyway! Might be talking a load of rubbish for all I know though!

Chris

EdBray

06-12-2008, 18:13

The build quality of the 85mm f1.8 is considerably better than the 50mm f1.8, the poster above is corrct, the larger the maximum aperture for a given focal length the larger the glass and all other components need to be, the 85mm also has a USM motor.

Completely different beasts, as is the difference between the 85mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.2L, and the difference in price is even more marked.

andrewc

06-12-2008, 18:15

The f-stop is a ratio between focal length and diameter. Bigger diameter glass becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to make. The 85mm f1.8 is a bit of a bargain as well.

malla1962

06-12-2008, 18:17

the 85 has a metal mount, usm motor and a distance scale.

joxby

06-12-2008, 18:55

All valid reasons except for the USM.
Nikon lenses don't need a USM to auto focus, though they do manufacture an equivalent (AF-S), but not in an 85mm.
Check out the cost of their new f1.4 50 AF-S (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1028370) compared with the £75 non AF-S quoted.
To be fair, the Canon 50 1.8 isn't made of much, although it is USM, the Nikon 1.8 version non AF-S is a cheap lens but it's better built.
Apples/Oranges

USM = ultrasonic motor (af motor built into the lens) Canon
AF-S = AF Silentwave motor (af motor built into lens) Nikon
AF = AF motor built into body Nikon

malla1962

06-12-2008, 19:06

joxby

06-12-2008, 19:10

Canon 50f1.8 has no usm.

It has no motor in the lens ?

well, that shows how much I know about Canon...:lol:

Joe T

06-12-2008, 19:11

All Canon EF lenses have motors in them. Only some are USM though.

malla1962

06-12-2008, 19:15

It has no motor in the lens ?

well, that shows how much I know about Canon...:lol:
It sure does.:lol:

joxby

06-12-2008, 19:20

Well, I don't know :lol: I assume the op is asking about a Nikon 50 and 85.
I had hoped to dis-confuse him/her with the USM stuff that doesn't apply to anything Nikon

I don't suppose the op cares one way or the other, what's in a Canon 50.

:)

pearce_jj

06-12-2008, 19:27

re 50mm - this is the simplest design for 35mm cameras (and their derivatives) because of the distance from the lens to the film/sensor. Every other length is much more complicated to design and manufacture, notwithstanding the build differences between the two mentioned.

As it happens I have both and the 85mm is much, much nicer BTW.

HTH

33L

08-12-2008, 13:43

I have both and the images produced from the 85 are better than the 50 and i can stand the plasticy clunking of the 50 when it desides to hunt. It really doesn look like a toy.

welly

08-12-2008, 13:45

Yeah, sorry I was talking about Nikon lenses. I should have said :) I'm not sure about the price differences between the Canon lenses.

While the design of the 85mm is more complicated than the 50mm, that design has already been done. So that's out of the way.. is the manufacturing costs that much more? I think I'm just bitter I can't afford an 85mm f1.4 :)

33L

08-12-2008, 13:49

i wish canon did a 85 1.4 they seem to have missed that one out of their range.

StewartR

08-12-2008, 13:53

While the design of the 85mm is more complicated than the 50mm, that design has already been done. So that's out of the way.. is the manufacturing costs that much more?That's a good point about the design costs.

I have no idea what it costs to design a lens, but lets say 10 man years. That feels fairly conservative to me. Fully loading up those man years to allow for overheads etc, they might cost £100k each. So that's £1M to deign a lens. But Nikon made 100,000 of the 85mm f/1.8 befiore they upgraded the design in 1994, and another 100,000 before they upgraded the design again in 2005. So if that £1M is spread over 100,000 lenses, it contributes £10 to the cost.

Manufacturing costs might be more of an issue. It's certainly the case that lenses with wider apertures require much greater precision in the glass elements - or, to be more pedantic perhaps, they require the precision to be maintained over a much larger area of the glass. Perhaps there's a high wastage rate. Perhaps they need special (expensive) machines to do it. It would be interesting to hear from somebody who has inside knowledge about this.

StewartR

08-12-2008, 13:55

i wish canon did a 85 1.4 they seem to have missed that one out of their range.What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.2 L? It's one of the most amazing lenses you will ever set eyes on.

Amp34

08-12-2008, 13:59

What's wrong with the 85mm f/1.2 L? It's one of the most amazing lenses you will ever set eyes on.

Probably the cost?:lol:

33L

08-12-2008, 14:15

nothing is wrong with it exept i cant afford it! ( itwould be nice to have another stepping stone before getting to that sort of level glass!)