[bigdavephoto]

I have been wanting to ask this question for a long time and I am sure that a few people will think that I am an idiot for asking this question.


Anyways...


Why do fast lenses cost more then slow lenses?


As an example, Sigma makes two 10-20 mm zoom lenses, one is a f3.5 the other is f4-5.6. Now taking into account the 3.5 uses a 82mm filter and the 4-5.6 is a 77 mm filter, why does the 3.5 cost $649 and the 4-5.6 cost $479? That 5mm of glass can not be the reason for the almost $200 difference in the price, so it has to do with the f-stop.


What is it with the way it is built that makes a fast lens so expensive?


(Please don't bring up the HSM. The f4-5.6 does not have a HSM in the Pentax mount but Nikon and Canon mounts do.)

[Adam]

Fixed aperture zooms are considered premium lenses, and premium lenses cost more. Nobody said the retail price has to reflect material cost

With that said, it does seem like the 10-20mm is superior optically, which is a good thing I guess. Plus, unlike the other lens, it has quick shift AF:
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 vs F4.0-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[JinDesu]

Fast lenses use more glass yes, but also different and more complicated glass oftentimes just to get the size under control, as well as specific lens qualities (chromatic aberration, coma, etc) within reasonable values or sometimes better than the slower glass.

[Docrwm]

What dcshooter said hits the nail on the head.

[bigdavephoto]

I totally understand about the cost of making a lens from start to finish. From the person that makes the blueprints down to the person that actually put it together. What I can tell by looking at the specs is there is not much of a difference between the two lenses, but I did find this interesting that the 4-5.6 uses 14 elements in 10 groups and the 3.5 uses 13 elements in 10 groups. More glass in the 4-5.6 version but it is the cheaper of the two lenses.


The price people are willing to pay also comes into play. I would like to have a super wide zoom lens but I can't pay the price they want for them. Even on the used market it is out of my pocket. In fact, pretty much all lenses and camera bodies are out of my pocket right now.

[Docrwm]

I totally understand about the cost of making a lens from start to finish. From the person that makes the blueprints down to the person that actually put it together. What I can tell by looking at the specs is there is not much of a difference between the two lenses, but I did find this interesting that the 4-5.6 uses 14 elements in 10 groups and the 3.5 uses 13 elements in 10 groups. More glass in the 4-5.6 version but it is the cheaper of the two lenses.


The price people are willing to pay also comes into play. I would like to have a super wide zoom lens but I can't pay the price they want for them. Even on the used market it is out of my pocket. In fact, pretty much all lenses and camera bodies are out of my pocket right now.

I understand. But if you aren't able to pay that much debating what goes into pricing won't change anything. Faster glass costs more, always has.

[bigdavephoto]

I understand. But if you aren't able to pay that much debating what goes into pricing won't change anything. Faster glass costs more, always has.

I have always wondered about the pricing of lenses and why this lens cost so much more then that lens. The Sigma lens I used as an example because they are both being made right now. I also understand, after reading the link that Adam posted, what the main difference between the 3.5 and 4-5.6 is.


My question also applies (maybe even more so) to the Pentax M 50 mm 1.4, Pentax M or A 50mm 1.7, and the Pentax M or A 50 mm 2.0. For the most part, all three are almost identical but you can get a 2.0 for $20-$40. A 1.7 from around $80 to $120 and the 1.4 for around $180.


It just don't understand the large amount of price difference.

[Docrwm]

I have always wondered about the pricing of lenses and why this lens cost so much more then that lens. The Sigma lens I used as an example because they are both being made right now. I also understand, after reading the link that Adam posted, what the main difference between the 3.5 and 4-5.6 is.


My question also applies (maybe even more so) to the Pentax M 50 mm 1.4, Pentax M or A 50mm 1.7, and the Pentax M or A 50 mm 2.0. For the most part, all three are almost identical but you can get a 2.0 for $20-$40. A 1.7 from around $80 to $120 and the 1.4 for around $180.


It just don't understand the large amount of price difference.

Macro + micro economics plus marketing and consumer psychology. It's a graduate degrees worth of study. Bottom line is capitalism and a free market.

[Volker76]

All of this having been said, the margins are rather outrageous. Higher aperture lenses could still be sold profitably at much lower prices than they are, but unfortunately the photographic pubic has shown for years that it is willing to pay the prices the manufacturers ask for. As a result, the manufacturers will continue to sell gear expensively until the public shows no more appetite for it, at which point they will be forced to lower their prices. Until such a time, they have no reason not to inflate prices. It's basic supply and demand.

photographers are idiots in that regard. A simple piece of metal with two holes in it, print some 'brand' on it and sell it for a shitload of money. Production cost: 30c. Retail price 50+ bucks...

And people are dumb enough to pay that.

Not even 'fashion' has such outrageous margins.

[lsimpkins]

I have always wondered about the pricing of lenses and why this lens cost so much more then that lens. The Sigma lens I used as an example because they are both being made right now. I also understand, after reading the link that Adam posted, what the main difference between the 3.5 and 4-5.6 is.

One must also consider that the manufacturing costs of glass elements probably grows exponentially with diameter. So the fast lens, with say a 77mm dia will be significantly more expensive for the lens manufacturer to buy or make than say a 62mm. And that doesn't even take into account that the fast lens will often have some of its lens elements made from more exotic glass formulations that are far more expensive than "standard" glass used in the slower lens.

My question also applies (maybe even more so) to the Pentax M 50 mm 1.4, Pentax M or A 50mm 1.7, and the Pentax M or A 50 mm 2.0. For the most part, all three are almost identical but you can get a 2.0 for $20-$40. A 1.7 from around $80 to $120 and the 1.4 for around $180.

In addition to all the reasons that have already been stated, the end user may want the extra light gathering capabilities and subject isolation of the faster lens, even if that lens may not be as sharp across the image as the slightly slower version. This leads to demand that helps increase the cost difference between these examples.