I often hear this question: why do lenses cost so much? And why are fast lenses even more expensive?
There are several very good reasons for this.
- Lenses contain very expensive, high-quality optical glass. The more glass, the more cost. The faster a lens, the more glass (that is what “fast” means: a larger opening): ergo, the higher that cost.
- Today’s lenses contain sophisticated electronics. See my 16-35 f/2.8 lens below, a while ago after I, um, dropped it. Twice.
- Economies of scale: of course a more popular lens has lower cost, because it sells more (look at the popular 50mm f/1.8 lenses).
Here’s that lens of mine:
Lens "wide open" - for real
The good news: as I have said here many times, lenses are an investment. They are more important to your picture than the camera, and they retain their value, often for decades.
TIP: go to the online Canon Museum and go to the Virtual Lens Plant to see a very interesting series of videos about lens manufacture.
Ouch, you don’t see a f2.8 wide open like that too often. Dropped twice? I do hope it can be repaired.
Yes, that was painful. Fortunately, it was repaired; this was a while ago.
Being an Olympus owner, it doesn’t appear as though I get to enjoy $100-$200 50mm f/1.8 lenses like the Canon and Nikon folks do. Instead, I get to spend $438.99USD! I realize that this is a macro lense, whereas the Canon and Nikon aren’t but still, does that justify the 4x price difference?
Mike,
Well, there are advantages to using Canon and Nikon. Economies of scale. That’s why years ago I switched from Olympus, much as I loved my OM-4.
That said, even at a much higher price, yes, I would definitely say it is worth the price. The result is what counts and you will love it and what it does for your photography.
Thanks Michael. I kinda figured it was a numbers thing. One of these days I’ll have the extra money to buy it!