Lens Prices

Yes it's mainly because it's USM. It will probably have better optics aswell.
 
also, the first lens on your list is a failrly standard "kit" lens and is designed down to a price. It's almost the zoom EFS equivalent of the 50mm f1.8
 
Last edited:
Hold the two in your hand and you'll be able to tell why!
 
I must add that all those prices seem extortionate. I'd be looking at half that.
 
Thread cleaned.

Blame looked fairly equal to me so lets just pretend it never happened :)
 
RobertP said:
Thread cleaned.

Blame looked fairly equal to me so lets just pretend it never happened :)
Click to expand...

ok fair enough but its ok for a member with 2000 posts to take the mick out a a new member with a handful of posts and call them a tool :nono:

Thought I ask a valid question in the 'Talk Basic' forum, if another member can't help why do they post then mock them because they can't access the classifieds? what did that have to do with it
 
It's not OK. Equally it is not OK to provoke someone either when they post a comparison that you didn't get the meaning of. Your provocation should not have got the reply it did so I see the blame as equal.

Your question has been left in basics but could have been in talk equipment as it looks like a standard 'which lens to buy' type question. I take it as a what's the difference between a lens of x price vs one of y price query that could be answered here.

Can we pretend it didn't happen now ? :)
 
quite simply;its not about the mm its about the build quality. if you think those are expensive try the 17-55 2.8 or the 16-35 2.8L.
 
Phil V said:
quite simply;its not about the mm its about the build quality. if you think those are expensive try the 17-55 2.8 or the 16-35 2.8L.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Or another (perhaps slightly more relevant) comparison:

EF 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM = £300 or so
EF 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM = £550 or so

These have both been supplied by Canon as "kit" lenses with various bodies. The 17-85 is the walkabout lens I have on my 40D. The 15-85 is the walkabout lens I borrow from the office whenever possible. Their specs look very similar, but the build quality and the image quality of the 15-85 are streets ahead of the 17-85.
 
If you don't wear glasses take a look at lens prices for those. For a decent pair of thin lenses you are looking at more than the cost of a usuable 50mm prime.
Yes camera lenses are cookie cutter whereas eye lens are very bespoke but still made on a machine and just two pieces of plastic/glass versus all teh stuff that goes into a camera lens.
 
Certainly the price fits with the 17-55 2.8 and 16-35 2.8L as you've constant f/2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range and the L range glass being superior overall in design, construction etc etc. The 17-55mm IS USM aperture starts at f/4

Not able to get to a shop soon to hold and compare the 17-55mm IS USM and 18-135MM IS but using jessops and wex compare there does not seem much difference hence I'm asking here. It has been suggested the difference is like comaring a BMW to a Peugeot
 
It would be interesting if anyone can post a couple of pictures of the same thing taken on a 'cheap' lens and an 'L' type lens to see just how much difference there is in image quality between them.

Anyone able to help out ?
 
EspressoJunkie said:
As mentioned, the build, and quality of glass in the lens have a massive impact on the cost.

Also there's a huge amount of work involved in the manufacturing of a lens. Theres's a cracking video here that shows just how much work goes into their production.
Click to expand...

Heres a good one... Making of Canon L Series 500mm F4L IS USM. 3 Parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNFW0YwDYw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzpt49qq6v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bQ3-DWh-rA&feature=related
 
Originally Posted by EspressoJunkie
As mentioned, the build, and quality of glass in the lens have a massive impact on the cost.

Also there's a huge amount of work involved in the manufacturing of a lens. Theres's a cracking video here that shows just how much work goes into their production.
Click to expand...

Fla5h said:
Heres a good one... Making of Canon L Series 500mm F4L IS USM. 3 Parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNFW0YwDYw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzpt49qq6v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bQ3-DWh-rA&feature=related
Click to expand...

And that's half my morning work lost because of you two posting those! Utterly fascinating. :clap:
 
stevewestern said:
It would be interesting if anyone can post a couple of pictures of the same thing taken on a 'cheap' lens and an 'L' type lens to see just how much difference there is in image quality between them.

Anyone able to help out ?
Click to expand...

The thing is its not just image quality, I've got thousands of shots taken with 2.8 zooms that I simply couldn't have got with lesser gear. The low light focussing ability of the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 are beyond reproach. For each of us we have to justify our choices, and for me that's the deal maker, it doesn't matter how good you make the noise handling in a new cheaper body, a good lens on a 20d will still get the shot where a cheap lens on a 60d won't. For me it's the quality of the image that matters more than image quality. And having good quality lenses means that my ability is the limitation, not the gear.

To further the car analogy, when I used to drive my wife's cinquecento I could drive it right on the edge of its performance, whereas in most modern cars I can scare myself before I get anywhere near the maximum performance of the car.
 
I totally agree Phil, which is why I, you and so many others have spent so much money on lenses.
However, I am curious to see just how visible the difference is in like-for-like shots.

Many years ago I bought a Canon 70-300 lens as I didn't understand why a 70-200 cost twice or three times as much. However, when trying to use it in low light I could watch my children grow up and leave home before it would snap into focus. With the 70-200 I have taken pictures I may well not have got.
Guess which one I still have...?
 
spoke to a guy at lunchtime and explained a bit clearer but in a nutshell th 18-135mm is covering a wider focal range and will not perform to the same as the 17-85mm As Phil mention in post #10 but he also mention the build quailty

Then I was pointed towards the 17-40mm USM, again starts at f/4 but this lens is optimised between 17-40mm and then another price jump

Thanks all for the input
 
Fla5h said:
spoke to a guy at lunchtime and explained a bit clearer but in a nutshell th 18-135mm is covering a wider focal range and will not perform to the same as the 17-85mm As Phil mention in post #10 but he also mention the build quailty

Then I was pointed towards the 17-40mm USM, again starts at f/4 but this lens is optimised between 17-40mm and then another price jump

Thanks all for the input
Click to expand...

Can I confuse you more by saying (IMO) the 18-135 has better IQ than the 17-85 as well as offering better range? Its not always straight forward in this game! :lol:
 
If I get time tomorrow I'll drag the wife's camera bag out and try and get a comparison between a 18-55 IS and a 24-105 f4 IS L at the same reach and similar f stops just to see. Will be interesting what the difference is say at 35mm at f5.6 through f11 on both lenses.
 
modchild said:
If I get time tomorrow I'll drag the wife's camera bag out and try and get a comparison between a 18-55 IS and a 24-105 f4 IS L at the same reach and similar f stops just to see. Will be interesting what the difference is say at 35mm at f5.6 through f11 on both lenses.
Click to expand...

Would like to see the results of that. Can understand Phil V's point that good quality lenses may mean that a shot is achievable when a cheaper lens just wouldn't be able to capture anything, but would guess that would be a fairly rare occurrence (?). If you get the chance to post the results of that experiment, it'd be interesting to see, modchild...
 
modchild said:
If I get time tomorrow I'll drag the wife's camera bag out and try and get a comparison between a 18-55 IS and a 24-105 f4 IS L at the same reach and similar f stops just to see. Will be interesting what the difference is say at 35mm at f5.6 through f11 on both lenses.
Click to expand...

Good on you !
Looking forward to seeing just how much better the glass is with all things being equal - many thanks for offering to make the effort.
 
To be honest, I don't think theres much difference in image quality between the 18-55 IS and 18-135 IS - just a big difference in price and range!
 
nobby noname said:
Can understand Phil V's point that good quality lenses may mean that a shot is achievable when a cheaper lens just wouldn't be able to capture anything, but would guess that would be a fairly rare occurrence (?).
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you shoot and how important it is that you get results. I suppose that's why fast lenses are referred to as 'pro quality'.

If your hobby is landscape photography, then fast lenses aren't really going to be much use, but then build quality and optical properties might be very important. If you just like to capture holiday snaps, or daytrips with the kids, you'll not really see the need. But I suppose it comes down to the last 20% statistic.

A wedding photographer needs a lens that will focus in insanely dark conditions. As a wedding guest, when the lights go down and your camera will no longer focus, it just means you can get on with some serious drinking. I'm expected to still get the shots. And the built in flash with the red-eye reduction and focus assist doesn't really fit with my artistic vision:eek:. Oddly we portrait photographers spend loads of money on really sharp lenses and our quiet evenings sat at the computer making people look better by selectively smoothing images.

My 'fun' photography is rallying, when I've spent loads of money to get to an event and got up at 4 in the morning, put on my waterproof gear and trudged a mile up a mountain, I don't want to be leaving the camera in the bag because the light is low.:shake:

The thing is, once you've got used to using gear that works in almost impossible situations, you can't go back to kit lenses, they're just bundles of frustration.:gag:
 
That makes total sense actually, Phil V! I had the 50mm 1.8, and loved what I could capture in low light so much have swapped it for the 1.4 - so that completely goes against my last post's comment (doh!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top