Why the price difference? 35mm vs 50mm

gremlin16

gremlin16

Messages
2,650
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, I'm currently scratching my head about a 35mm for my Z6 and whether to go for the 1.8S or the 1.8G. During the scratching, I wondered why you can pick up a FX 50mm 1.8 G for hardly any money at all, yet all the FX 35mm seem to be mega bucks?

Does anyone know a logical explanation for this? I understand why the Z and the Sigma ART are so expensive, but why are the G's disproportionate?

Thanks.
 
Why does a bently cost more than a nissan micra they are both cars with 2 doors and 4 wheels
 
shaprness
colour
materials
build quality
CA (lack of)
focus speed
focus noise (lack of)
research and development
brand
etc
 
I don’t think I’ve explained it too well. I’m wondering why the equivalent 50mm is cheap compared to the equivalent 35mm.

Me: “ I understand why the Z and the Sigma ART are so expensive, but why are the G's disproportionate?”
 
A 50mm lens is incredibly easy to manufacturer which why there is almost always a cheap 50mm option for most camera systems. 35mm lenses are more difficult to design and build so will usually cost more.

For the Z lenses you are paying the early adopter penalty.
 
1st party lenses are always going to cost more, 3rd party (Sigma) have to be cheaper because they want people to get a Sigma lens for their Sony or Canon or Nikon.
 
But it's probably also 'what the market will bear', and there's an expectation that a nifty fifty is cheap - as it is the G series seem outrageously expensive for what they are - until one starts comparing prices with Sony kit.
 
I've often read that 50's are cheaper than 35's to design and make and I do wonder if that's true. Years ago 28's were probably more common than 35's and they were relatively cheap too which seems to go against the thought that wider angle lenses are harder to make and more expensive as if this is true for 35's it should be even more true for 28's.
 
It is a fact that 50mm lenses are cheaper to manufacture.

I thought it was common knowledge and I am shocked at some of the answers hahahaha
 
ancient_mariner said:
But it's probably also 'what the market will bear', and there's an expectation that a nifty fifty is cheap - as it is the G series seem outrageously expensive for what they are - until one starts comparing prices with Sony kit.
Click to expand...

Well yes but you have to take quality into account. For example your average nifty fifty is a relative piece of tat compared to the much more expensive Sony 55mm f1.8 which is expensive but is also one of the best lenses you can buy... if you go by what happens on the test bench, and yet it's a fraction of the cost of the Otis.

Other Sony lenses also appear expensive but they may justify their price a little easier if you consider that they're newer designs whereas some of the competition are using relatively old designs and the new stuff is generally good whereas some of the older stuff is (whisper it....) less good. And Sony aren't a special case in quality or price. Look at the newer and better performing designs from just about anyone and they're tending to be, with of course the odd exception, very good, bigger and heavier and more expensive.

All in all I'm mostly happy when I think what some of the older stuff I've had and still have cost in todays money. To think we paid what it cost back then in todays terms for that tat :( :D
 
woof woof said:
Other Sony lenses also appear expensive but they may justify their price a little easier if you consider that they're newer designs whereas some of the competition are using relatively old designs and the new stuff is generally good whereas some of the older stuff is (whisper it....) less good.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly have a problem with any of that. No idea what the 55 f1.8 is like *yet*, but I'm happy to believe it's good.
 
If we can believe what DXO say it seems to be very good. I have one and all I can say is that it simply outclasses any 50mm-ish lens I've ever used for things like across the frame sharpness at wide apertures and stuff like that. I've seen people on forums describe it as soulless but to be honest that makes no sense to me unless soulless means an almost complete lack of any optical issue to point at and complain about. Would these same people describe an Otis as soulless? Maybe. Yes, a dodgy old film era 50 has plenty of soul if soul means softness, smeared corners, CA and vignetting and all that can give a very nice look to a picture but modern almost optical defect free designs are a different thing and can be expected to give a different look to those characterful old lenses which in comparison are relative milk bottles :D
 
Rules of diminishing returns applies.

After a certain point you need to know what you are looking for, a lot of the things where your money goes cannot be seen in a photo and even if you can, it's subjective rather than objective. Some of the things like the feel of the lens, the balance, the focus speed only the photographer can appreciate.

I can use any of these lenses and if I take a bunch of photos with them, process them and mix them up, you would be hard press to tell which one they came from.

0k0tMXo.jpg
 
But I can tell my 7 35's and 11 50's apart, at least at their widest apertures :D
 
I do believe there is a degree of "scene tax" involved, we all know 35mm is the quintessential focal length for a ff camera, as so do the marques, so can bump an extra percentage on top and know people will pay it.
 
woof woof said:
Well yes but you have to take quality into account. For example your average nifty fifty is a relative piece of tat compared to the much more expensive Sony 55mm f1.8 which is expensive but is also one of the best lenses you can buy... if you go by what happens on the test bench, and yet it's a fraction of the cost of the Otis.
Click to expand...

The Nikon G series 50s are also a new design, and built to a higher standard than their earlier series, so very similar in many ways but much less expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top