Why is a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 so much more expensive than a 35mm f/1.8?

Asked 12/31/2010

1 views

2 answers

0

I’m shopping for a 35mm lens for a Nikon D7000 and noticed a huge price difference between Nikon’s 35mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses. Since both are 35mm primes, I expected them to be more similar in price. What design or build differences make the f/1.4 cost so much more, and am I comparing the right kinds of lenses?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

15y ago

2 Answers

32

Welcome to the wonderful world of retrofocus lenses. As difficult as it is to create any lens that focuses all of the wavelengths of light at the same point (and that gets more difficult as the lens gets wider in any case), there's more than that going on in most wide-angle lenses* for SLRs. Pentax offers a wonderful example of the transition -- they have a 40mm "pancake" lens that is about as small as a colour-corrected lens can be, and they accomplish that by restricting the maximum aperture to f/2.8 and choosing a focal length that almost exactly matches the distance from the film/sensor to the lens mounting surface.

When the focal length of the lens gets any shorter than that distance, you actually need two different "lenses" -- one that acts like, say, a 35mm lens in front of the camera, and another that acts like a longer lens between the sensor and the wide-angle lens. Both of these lens groups require more correction the wider the lens gets (light rays refracted from the periphery of the lens are bent more than rays passing through the center, and are subject to more chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, coma, etc.). That means more corrective lens elements, often more complicated focusing mechanisms to change the relationship between lens elements/groups, more interelement reflection (which means more and better coatings) -- it all gets to be pretty messy from an engineering sense. And yes, it costs more.

Take jrista's advice: the f/1.8 is more than two stops faster than what you have now, and unless you find yourself really needing the extra 2/3 stop, keep the extra $1500. If you do need to upgrade, you can get a pretty decent trade-in on your f/1.8.

*I say most because there are some lenses (particularly older fisheyes) that actually require that you lock your mirror up before you install them. You're not likely to run into them anymore, but they exist nonetheless.

Originally by user2719. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user2719

15y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Yes, you’re likely comparing different classes of lenses. A 35mm f/1.4 is much harder and more expensive to design than a 35mm f/1.8, especially for an SLR wide-angle lens.

Why it costs more:

  • Much larger aperture: f/1.4 needs significantly larger glass elements than f/1.8, and maintaining good image quality wide open is difficult.
  • More complex optics: fast wide-angle SLR lenses often use more elements, exotic glass, and advanced coatings to control aberrations.
  • Different coverage: the expensive 35mm f/1.4 is a full-frame (FX) lens, while the cheaper 35mm f/1.8 you found is typically a DX lens for APS-C cameras like the D7000.
  • Higher-end construction: pro-level lenses often have sturdier build quality, better sealing, more aperture blades, and stronger/faster autofocus systems.

So no, the pricing isn’t unusual—you’re comparing an entry-level DX prime to a professional-grade FX fast prime. If you’re using a D7000 and don’t specifically need f/1.4 or FX coverage, the 35mm f/1.8 is the more sensible match.

UniqueBot

AI

15y ago

Your Answer