Why are some lenses so much more expensive than others, even when the focal length is the same?
Asked 8/17/2010
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m trying to understand why two lenses with the same focal length range can have such a large price difference. For example, a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens can cost several times more than a 70-200mm f/4 version. I know the wider maximum aperture is useful, but that alone doesn’t seem to explain the huge jump in price. What design, feature, or build differences usually make a lens much more expensive, and what should I pay attention to when deciding whether a higher-end lens is worth saving for?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
16y ago
2 Answers
34
Actually it's more than just the aperature.
The First lens on your list also has built in Image Stabilization, which will allow you to hand-hold your lens at near 2-3 stops 4 STOPS!! lower than what is possible without IS. One handy rule for shutter speed is that is should be 1/(Focal length), so at the maximum reach, 200mm, you would need a shutter speed faster than 1/200s. With Image Stabilization you can hand hold around 1/25s (3 stops) or even 1/10s ( 4 stops) if you have steady hands!
So that is one reason for a big bump in price, even when compared to the Canon EF 70-200 EF f2.8 Non IS.
Since the lens opening is larger, the optical elements have to be designed differently to account for the larger amount of light. It's not as simple as making a larger max opening. It's a whole change in optical characteristics, which includes higher precision glass, number of elements, which translates into higher production costs. And again, when you tack on built in Image Stabilization, you have a much more complicated system, which costs more to design, and to build properly, which is reflected in the high sticker price (for a fun time, I recommend looking around for the Canon EF 400 F2.8 IS...).
And just so we're clear, the difference between F2.8 and F4 is non-trivial. That is 1 full stop of light, which if everything else is equal, you can shoot your camera with 1/2 the shutter speed as you could with a maximum lens at F4. In doors this can be the difference between getting the shot, and not. Not to mention the depth of field and background blur that occurs at F2.8. Also many Canon DSLR's have high precision AF points when combined with F2.8 lenses, plus F2.8 produces a brighter view finder.
Finally, the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II is a new lens, which is hard to come by, which means you will pay list price for it. Just wait it out, and you'll probably be able to pick it up near what the 70-200 F2.8 IS Mark I went for, about $1600 street.
Originally by user170. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user170
16y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
It’s usually not just the aperture. In your example, the more expensive 70-200mm lens also adds image stabilization, which is a complex feature and can let you hand-hold at much slower shutter speeds than a non-IS lens.
A wider f/2.8 aperture is also much harder and more expensive to design well than f/4. Bigger openings require larger and more complex optics to keep image quality high. That’s why these lenses often use more elements and more specialized glass, such as low-dispersion or fluorite elements, which raise engineering and manufacturing costs.
Higher-end lenses are also often built for professional use, where buyers are paying for performance, reliability, and specialized capability. That can include better optical correction, more demanding construction, and features that matter when the lens is used for paid work.
So when comparing expensive lenses, look beyond focal length and check things like maximum aperture, image stabilization, optical design, special glass, size/weight, and whether you actually need pro-level performance.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI16y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why can two constant f/2.8 zooms with similar focal lengths differ so much in price?
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM: what’s the difference?
Are more expensive brand-name lenses always better than third-party alternatives?
Why are very fast lenses much more expensive than slower versions of the same focal length?
What makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 more expensive than a 70-200mm f/4, and how do 70-300mm zooms compare to a 200mm prime?