Expensive Lenses

[superwaxer]

Hey guys,

Ive been doing film photography for a few years but have recently (1 week ago lol) switched to digital permanently. When I bought my new equipment I couldnt help but notice that the same sized lenses can have a price difference of up to $3000. Over the years that I have been doing photography I strangely enough never came accross a difference that big. So I was wondering, why do you pay 3k more for a lens that has the same focal length etc?

I know that some lenses have a better quality glass and stuff like stabilizers but what makes the big difference?

Cheers guys

[Wouter Melissen]

Quality is the keyword here. Both construction quality and optical quality is far superior on more expensive lenses.

[Ferrari330P4]

Like Wouter said, it is the construction and optical quality.
Those expensive lenses have larger apertures, requiring more glass and materials to be used.
Stabilizers can be found even in the cheapest kit lenses.
BTW, what camera gear do you have?
Thanks

[superwaxer]

I bought a Canon 400D. I've always been kind of a Canon fan so the 400D was the obvious choice. I also have a 15 - 55mm, 35 - 80mm and a 85 - 300mm lens.

Do you get more light into the expensive lenses?

[<AAA-MOD>]

I bought a Canon 400D. I've always been kind of a Canon fan so the 400D was the obvious choice. I also have a 15 - 55mm, 35 - 80mm and a 85 - 300mm lens.

Do you get more light into the expensive lenses?

You can get more light into a really cheap large aperture lens too. the cost of a lens is directly related to two things:

1. construction, which includes number of elements and the quality of the glass
2. aperture and focal range


In case you don't fully understand the concept of aperture: What is aperture?

Then compare lens prices like this:
Canon 70-200 F4L: $750 CDN
Canon 70-200 F2.8L: $1420 CDN

They're both L lenses, which designate Canon's top quality glass and they're both the same focal length but just that short range of F-stops makes a world of difference in the amount of light entering the lens. The more light entering, the faster the shutter speed can be.

In my experience with buying lenses for my Canon cameras, you honestly do "get what you pay for". We all know Canon and Nikon are the big names in DSLR and their prices reflect the results you'll receive. A Canon lens isn't priced more than a Sigma lens just because it has a Canon name on it. Canon L lenses are quite expensive, but worth every penny, so just work within your budget and buy the best glass when you can afford it.

[LamboCars]

I can give you one major piece of advice : buy the most expensive lens you can afford !

I've bought the 17-85 IS from Canon at first, just because it seemed a decent range and didn't cost an arm and a leg ... it has been sold and replaced by the 17-55 IS 2.8 and a 24-105 IS 4 ... either costs double the price of my first lens, but the resulting photographs are so much better.

I also started out with the 70-200 f4, not a bad lens at all, but still replaced it with the 70-200 IS 2.8 afterwards ... totally different price, but also totally different results.

You can start out with a cheaper lens, but you'll end up selling it with a loss and going for the best possible ones later on.

Mark
Lamborghini cars, the enthusiast site

[Ferrari330P4]

I can give you one major piece of advice : buy the most expensive lens you can afford !

You can start out with a cheaper lens, but you'll end up selling it with a loss and going for the best possible ones later on.

Mark
Lamborghini cars, the enthusiast site

Exactly. You should buy the most expensive lens you can afford, don't upgrade to a mid-level lens, go all out on lens upgrades. I know that is what I will do.
18-70 3.5-4.5
70-300 4.5-5.6

upgrade to
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

Thanks

[superwaxer]

Thanks guys Ill definitely buy some more expensive lenses next time I upgrade. Senior photographers always advised me to do so but I never knew why.

Cheers guys!

[pat_ernzen]

I can't say that I agree with much of what people are saying in this thread. For example, I've used both the 70-200mm f4 and f2.8 IS and I most definitely wouldn't say "totally different results". Personally, I think far too much emphasis is put on gear in general and "most expensive = best" is a horrible rule of thumb, IMO. That's not to say that it's best to have the best glass you can afford, but simply spending a bunch of money on lenses isn't automatically going to improve your photos or give you great results. There are tons of rich amateurs shooting with seriously expensive gear and getting mediocre results while people are shooting with entry level equipment and coming away with stunning photos.

[henk4]

I can't say that I agree with much of what people are saying in this thread. For example, I've used both the 70-200mm f4 and f2.8 IS and I most definitely wouldn't say "totally different results". Personally, I think far too much emphasis is put on gear in general and "most expensive = best" is a horrible rule of thumb, IMO. That's not to say that it's best to have the best glass you can afford, but simply spending a bunch of money on lenses isn't automatically going to improve your photos or give you great results. There are tons of rich amateurs shooting with seriously expensive gear and getting mediocre results while people are shooting with entry level equipment and coming away with stunning photos.

photoshop will never be able to replace expensive lenses...

[Ferrari330P4]

I can't say that I agree with much of what people are saying in this thread. For example, I've used both the 70-200mm f4 and f2.8 IS and I most definitely wouldn't say "totally different results". Personally, I think far too much emphasis is put on gear in general and "most expensive = best" is a horrible rule of thumb, IMO. That's not to say that it's best to have the best glass you can afford, but simply spending a bunch of money on lenses isn't automatically going to improve your photos or give you great results. There are tons of rich amateurs shooting with seriously expensive gear and getting mediocre results while people are shooting with entry level equipment and coming away with stunning photos.

I understand 100% what you are saying, but the subject of this thread was why lenses cost so much. Honestly, the main reason I would want pro level glass is for the speed, rather than the limited depth of field. I know they come together, but speed is what I am most interested in. I do a lot of low light shooting, and I know I wouldn't mind having lenses that are a couple of stops faster. I hope I am making sense, but I am probably not, don't have your experience.
Thanks

[henk4]

I understand 100% what you are saying, but the subject of this thread was why lenses cost so much. Honestly, the main reason I would want pro level glass is for the speed, rather than the limited depth of field. I know they come together, but speed is what I am most interested in. I do a lot of low light shooting, and I know I wouldn't mind having lenses that are a couple of stops faster. I hope I am making sense, but I am probably not, don't have your experience.
Thanks

it is called the law of diminishing returns. It costs very little to achieve the initial quality hike, but to get the very best the extra costs are much more than proportional...

[pat_ernzen]

photoshop will never be able to replace expensive lenses...

Oh, didn't see that coming.

[pat_ernzen]

I understand 100% what you are saying, but the subject of this thread was why lenses cost so much. Honestly, the main reason I would want pro level glass is for the speed, rather than the limited depth of field. I know they come together, but speed is what I am most interested in. I do a lot of low light shooting, and I know I wouldn't mind having lenses that are a couple of stops faster. I hope I am making sense, but I am probably not, don't have your experience.
Thanks

Oh, absolutely, but I just think things like sharpness are "overrated". Sharpness, or lack thereof, has never ruined a great photo. And, yeah, for low light shooting where a tripod can't be used, obviously a fast lens and IS are awesome/necessary. I guess I would also like to mention that there are great, non-Canon/Nikon lenses that'll get you 99% what the Canon/Nikon equivalent will for significantly less money... which goes back to my point that just because something is expensive doesn't mean it's the "best".

[Wouter Melissen]

I can't say that I agree with much of what people are saying in this thread. For example, I've used both the 70-200mm f4 and f2.8 IS and I most definitely wouldn't say "totally different results". Personally, I think far too much emphasis is put on gear in general and "most expensive = best" is a horrible rule of thumb, IMO. That's not to say that it's best to have the best glass you can afford, but simply spending a bunch of money on lenses isn't automatically going to improve your photos or give you great results. There are tons of rich amateurs shooting with seriously expensive gear and getting mediocre results while people are shooting with entry level equipment and coming away with stunning photos.

Why is it then that almost every Canon professional I see has L-lenses? You are absolutely right that with modest equipment fantastic pictures can be made. But only under ideal circumstances. A professional needs to get a good shot at any condition. Apart from all the fantastic glass used in the lenses, all L-Lenses are also weather sealed. Combined with a 1-series body, these things work like a champ in the rain. I care little about my 70-200 getting soaked, but I am scared shitless about the Sigma 500 getting only a little wet. It is quite amazing how well these high tech electrical appliances can handle rain. This also why there is a premium for the top range stuff.

And for the record the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is the better lens.