Lens Costs

L

Lawsyd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
67
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not a 'techy' in life, so there may be a simple answer to this question, but can anybody please tell me why, generally, a prime lens will cost more than a zoom lens capable of similar magnification?

I'm not having a pop at any particular marque, nor am I trying to troll anybody, but it seems strange that the item with more 'moving parts' (the zoom) is usually cheaper.

Any thoughts, please, anybody?
 
Lawsyd said:
why, generally, a prime lens will cost more than a zoom lens capable of similar magnification?
Click to expand...


I believe you got that the wrong way, zooms are more
expensive, understandably.
 
As Kodiak says. But at the longer end (600mm and f4) primes are a touch more expensive :dummy:
 
Unless you're talking about super telephoto. Say a 500mm f4 versus a 150/600 zoom which is f6.3 at the long end. It's because fixed Aperture long lenses, say at f4 are much more demanding to produce and develop.
 
One difference will be that a Prime will typically have a much larger maximum aperture - EG F/1.4 (prime) compared to f/2.8 (premium zoom) or f/3.5-5.6 (kit zoom)

The large max aperture means a larger front element - and that's increases the cost.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
I believe you got that the wrong way, zooms are more
expensive, understandably.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I stand by what I said I said in my opening post. I've seen a prime (at the middle magnification of my zoom) at something like three times the cost. Also, I was in the company of a professional (sports) photographer today & he agreed that primes tend to be more expensive than zooms.
 
Generally larger aperture equals more cost for a given focal length. True of primes and zooms, just make sure you're comparing apples with apples.
 
Last edited:
Lawsyd said:
Sorry, I stand by what I said I said in my opening post. I've seen a prime (at the middle magnification of my zoom) at something like three times the cost. Also, I was in the company of a professional (sports) photographer today & he agreed that primes tend to be more expensive than zooms.
Click to expand...

The sports photographer isn't wrong. At their end of the scale you can get long primes with a large aperture for mega bucks.

There will be similar focal length zooms for much less but they will have a much much smaller maximum aperture.
 
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens at Jessops £1,600

Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G Lens at Jessops £379

Nikon AF-S 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II at Jessops £4699

Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED Lens at Jessops £214


As stated earlier - apples & pears. Build quality & aperture key factors




 
Ady N said:
As stated earlier - apples & pears. Build quality & aperture key factors
Click to expand...

very cool…
… and, not to forget, mass production.
 
Lawsyd said:
Sorry, I stand by what I said I said in my opening post. I've seen a prime (at the middle magnification of my zoom) at something like three times the cost. Also, I was in the company of a professional (sports) photographer today & he agreed that primes tend to be more expensive than zooms.
Click to expand...
Can you give examples? It really depends what lens you are talking about. You can get zoom lenses like the 70-200 f2.8 that are much more expensive than a 70-300 f4.5-5.6. There is also the 200-400 f4 zoom that's more expensive than the 200 f2, 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 primes. There are also plenty of cheaper primes in the f1.8 range but you need several to cover the range of the 24-70 f2.8 so a zoom may work out cheaper.

Generally faster, better built lenses will be much more expensive than slower cheaper built lenses.
 
Last edited:
There's rarely a 'general rule' but I'm presuming your 'zoom lens' is a kit lens, they're built down to a price.

Now there are cheap Prime lenses too, but there really is no general rule. Each lens needs to be taken on merit. As Kodiak says 'apples and apples .

Take the 50mm 1.8 from Canon, cheaper than any of their zooms, faster and sharper than all bar the best.

The 85mm 1.8 is better than any zoom covering that range, whether more or less expensive, and some of them are a lot more expensive.

I could go on all night. In short; it's not that simple.
 
Lawsyd said:
but can anybody please tell me why, generally, a prime lens will cost more than a zoom lens capable of similar magnification?
?
Click to expand...

the simple answer is that your question is flawed

I have a 70-200mm f2.8 ZOOM that cost me £1,800
I can get a prime thats equal or better for LESS

I have a 400mm f2.8 PRIME that cost me over £6000
I can get any zoom in that range for LESS
 
Nawty said:
Not that where it's made has an bearing on quality.
Click to expand...
In a general sense absolutely not. In the particular instance of Chinese and Japanese Nikon lenses it certainly has an impact on price. I am a strong believer that I get what I pay for (not always though), so all my Nikon lenses are not made in Japan. :dummy:That is why my photos are cr@p.
 
Another thing to remember is that for a given focal length, the prime is often capable of a wider aperture, and in the case of f/2.8 or faster, the diameter of these lens elements is significantly bigger. Bigger bits of glass require significantly more cutting and polishing, and in the case of Canon L lenses, fluorite crystal which is grown in a lab.

So a prime lens of similar aperture, pricing is often similar - e.g.: Canon 300mm f/4 IS - £1,139.00 vs Canon 70-300 f4 - f5.6 - £1,279.00
but when you step up to the f/2.8 version, the pieces of glass are significantly bigger, and the cost rises.
 
The original question was obviously flawed, in that it's as easy to find examples where it's wrong as right. Looking over my rather too large collection of lenses plus those I have played with but not bought it seems to me that a better case could be made for the price of a lens depending on its weight, regardless of whether it was a zoom or a prime. (Yes, I know that's not always true, but it's true more often than the supposition in the original question :-) )
 
Last edited:
Dont forget also the bigger the diameter of the front element the more difficult it is to get all the light rays focused on the same point and that requires very accurate polishing plus additional internal lens(es) to correct the spreading of the light. All of which adds to costs.
Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top