5 ms·

> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a tradition

> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
I think you're in agreement with me, but the difference for the pro versions are usually substantial, such as weather proofing and more rugged materials (metal vs plastic) and usually more glass (less distortion at extremes, etc.). The market kinda makes sense: if you care about a few extra stops, and distortion at the extremes, then you are probably an enthusiast or professional who is willing to shell out. Otherwise, you'll have a great deal of fun with the cheap lenses.
Kye 6y ago
You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.
monkeynotes 6y ago
2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers. It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage. Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  The focus motors are just flat out better in expensive lenses. By contrast, I have a $200 Panasonic pancake lens with a terrible focus motor in it. It's slow, noisy, and hunty.
  - da02 6y ago
    Which Panasonic pancake lens do you have that is slow & noisy? How's the image quality despite the low-end motor?
    - trm42 6y ago
      Sounds like the m43 20mm f1.7, which is known for its good IQ, pancake design but annoyingly slow AF :)
      - rodgerd 6y ago
        I was very disappointed when they bumped it to a version 2 and don't appear to have touched the motors or electronics. I'm very fond of the FOV from this focal length, but I have a hard time springing for a lens that will make... me... wait... so... long... for... focus... lock... Especially when it doesn't have a nice manual focus ring à la the Olympus m43 lenses.
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        Yup that's the one. It's fine for streetscape snapshots and taking photos of people who will stay still, but the slow AF makes it hard to use for anything fast-moving or unpredictable.
- jonpurdy 6y ago
  Used to shoot sports back in uni, circa 2008 (Just amazing how much things have changed since then). IIRC, the pro lenses (white Canons) focused faster as a result of them letting more light in, as well as having faster motors (USM), though mid-range lenses had these as well. Around that time, the body also made a big difference since the 1D-series had ~45 AF points, and the lower and mid-range bodes had 9-20 AF points. Not sure if this is still relevant but I think even low end bodies have a ton of AF points these days.
foo_barrio 6y ago
As far as optical quality goes, focusing only on f-stops is like focusing on horsepower for cars. Even in f-stops, not all f-stops are equal since some lens transmit more light than others at the same f-stop. This is called t-stops and is used a lot of in pro video lenses. Another example is if I focus on something and then zoom in and out some lenses have to refocus and others maintain focus. This is an important feature for video and any kind of fast shooting. Many lenses have much more "focus breathing" than others. That is, the change of the effective focal lens as the lens focuses closer and closer. I had a lens that was 200mm but it was really only at infinity. At close focus is was closer to 135mm since the focus breathing was so pronounced. Bokeh, chromatic/comatic abberations, geometric distortion are other things I can go on and on about.
michaelt 6y ago
> the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter Is it brighter for the same camera body, aperture and depth of field? If so, what would one look for in a lens's specifications to describe this difference?
- Green_man 6y ago
  In the above example (consumer 70-300 [often f4.0-5.6], vs pro 70-200 [usually f2.8]), when these lenses are placed on the same cameras, the pro 70-200 will give 4x the light compared to f5.6, or 2x the light compared with f4.0 (consumer zooms are often variable aperture, while pro lenses are more frequently constant aperture). If you were to compare the pro lens on some camera, and the consumer lens on some different sized sensor, the math can get more complicated. Below is an explanation of what f-stops mean, if you're interested. the maximum f-stop of the lens describes the ratio of sensor length (1D, diagonally is best comparison probably), to the diameter of lens aperture. because the opening and sensor are two dimensional, every sqrt(2) increase in f-stop describes halving the light. for example, a f 1.4 lens can allow ~twice as much light as an f 2.0 lens. Every doubling of light is considered a "stop", like {1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0}. An important consideration is that this number describes a ratio, not the absolute opening in the lens without respect to sensor size. One possible conversion method is to consider the sensor size of the system against some popular standard. For example, "aps-c" sized sensors are about 1 stop "slower" than full frame sensors, due to being 1/(2.25) the size of full frame sensors in area, or 1/(1.5) linearly. This means that many lenses can be converted not only on focal length, but also for f-stop, to estimate the total light gathering power of the system, and the output "look" of the image. Full frame sensors (~36mm x 24mm) are most frequently used in the photography world as a standard comparison point. For example, a 50mm 1.4 lens gives 50mm 1.4 on full frame, but that same lens on an aps-c sensor (like a fuji X, sony 6xxx, canon 7d, etc.) would not only give a cropped 75mm [full frame] focal length equivalence, it would also give the depth of field of a 75mm _2.0_ lens [on full frame], not 75mm 1.4. At the same time, the exposure would still benefit from the light gathered at f1.4. This is why many say that smaller sensors give a larger depth of field (more in focus, less out of focus background). In reality, this is due to the lens aperture being measured only as a ratio to the sensor size. Finally, the smaller aps-c sensor will give a larger depth of field at the same f stop, but may also give higher noise at the same ISO (to a similarly advanced full frame sensor). This means that an aps-c camera takes the exact same image when it has ~1 more f stop, ~33% less focal length, ~1 stop lower ISO to the full frame system. A big confusion around any of this "equivalence" discussion is that sometimes people mean equivalence for lens "look", and other times, they mean equivalence for exposure, while others may be talking about absolute image quality and noise. They're actually all related, though much of this discussion isn't important to real world photography.
tomc1985 6y ago
I recently switched from the mid-range Nikon 24-120 f/4 to the high-end 24-70 f/2.8. Yes the high-end lens is also a stop brighter, but you're missing the point that almost everything about the optics is dramatically improved. The 24-70 is noticeably sharper, even in the corners, has superior bokeh, has much better and more-easily correctable color fringing, super accurate AF (due to the wider aperture), nearly no vignetting, much better blowout characteristics, and much better distortion at wide angles. More importantly, those things combine to make a certain je nais sai quoi that makes photos taken with it seem to have much higher quality. I took a quick test shot of my dog when I got it and my sister remarked that she could practically feel the dog with her eyes, just looking at the photo. Nobody has ever said that about pictures of the dog that I took with the old lens, even if I spent considerable time trying to get lighting right and the dog to hold still. My old lens ruined a bunch of shots I took in a forest that required running at the extreme edge of its settings. This new lens doesn't look like it will do that.
ska 6y ago
build quality and f-stops isn't close to all that is different. Actual light transfer (e.g. t-stops in cine, but less quantitatively in SLRs, say - some lenses are brighter than others), sharpness, chromatic aberration, spatial aberration, focal speed and accuracy (assuming autofocus), consistency across the telephoto range (not for primes, obviously) - some lenses will have not just differet f-stops at different lengths, but really different characteristics. This doesn't even get into the subjective aspects (e.g. "bokeh") that some people care a lot about.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

I think you're in agreement with me, but the difference for the pro versions are usually substantial, such as weather proofing and more rugged materials (metal vs plastic) and usually more glass (less distortion at extremes, etc.). The market kinda makes sense: if you care about a few extra stops, and distortion at the extremes, then you are probably an enthusiast or professional who is willing to shell out. Otherwise, you'll have a great deal of fun with the cheap lenses.

Kye 6y ago

You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.

monkeynotes 6y ago

2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers. It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage. Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.

CydeWeys 6y ago
The focus motors are just flat out better in expensive lenses. By contrast, I have a $200 Panasonic pancake lens with a terrible focus motor in it. It's slow, noisy, and hunty.
- da02 6y ago
  Which Panasonic pancake lens do you have that is slow & noisy? How's the image quality despite the low-end motor?
  - trm42 6y ago
    Sounds like the m43 20mm f1.7, which is known for its good IQ, pancake design but annoyingly slow AF :)
    - rodgerd 6y ago
      I was very disappointed when they bumped it to a version 2 and don't appear to have touched the motors or electronics. I'm very fond of the FOV from this focal length, but I have a hard time springing for a lens that will make... me... wait... so... long... for... focus... lock... Especially when it doesn't have a nice manual focus ring à la the Olympus m43 lenses.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      Yup that's the one. It's fine for streetscape snapshots and taking photos of people who will stay still, but the slow AF makes it hard to use for anything fast-moving or unpredictable.
jonpurdy 6y ago
Used to shoot sports back in uni, circa 2008 (Just amazing how much things have changed since then). IIRC, the pro lenses (white Canons) focused faster as a result of them letting more light in, as well as having faster motors (USM), though mid-range lenses had these as well. Around that time, the body also made a big difference since the 1D-series had ~45 AF points, and the lower and mid-range bodes had 9-20 AF points. Not sure if this is still relevant but I think even low end bodies have a ton of AF points these days.

foo_barrio 6y ago

As far as optical quality goes, focusing only on f-stops is like focusing on horsepower for cars. Even in f-stops, not all f-stops are equal since some lens transmit more light than others at the same f-stop. This is called t-stops and is used a lot of in pro video lenses. Another example is if I focus on something and then zoom in and out some lenses have to refocus and others maintain focus. This is an important feature for video and any kind of fast shooting. Many lenses have much more "focus breathing" than others. That is, the change of the effective focal lens as the lens focuses closer and closer. I had a lens that was 200mm but it was really only at infinity. At close focus is was closer to 135mm since the focus breathing was so pronounced. Bokeh, chromatic/comatic abberations, geometric distortion are other things I can go on and on about.

michaelt 6y ago

> the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter Is it brighter for the same camera body, aperture and depth of field? If so, what would one look for in a lens's specifications to describe this difference?

Green_man 6y ago
In the above example (consumer 70-300 [often f4.0-5.6], vs pro 70-200 [usually f2.8]), when these lenses are placed on the same cameras, the pro 70-200 will give 4x the light compared to f5.6, or 2x the light compared with f4.0 (consumer zooms are often variable aperture, while pro lenses are more frequently constant aperture). If you were to compare the pro lens on some camera, and the consumer lens on some different sized sensor, the math can get more complicated. Below is an explanation of what f-stops mean, if you're interested. the maximum f-stop of the lens describes the ratio of sensor length (1D, diagonally is best comparison probably), to the diameter of lens aperture. because the opening and sensor are two dimensional, every sqrt(2) increase in f-stop describes halving the light. for example, a f 1.4 lens can allow ~twice as much light as an f 2.0 lens. Every doubling of light is considered a "stop", like {1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0}. An important consideration is that this number describes a ratio, not the absolute opening in the lens without respect to sensor size. One possible conversion method is to consider the sensor size of the system against some popular standard. For example, "aps-c" sized sensors are about 1 stop "slower" than full frame sensors, due to being 1/(2.25) the size of full frame sensors in area, or 1/(1.5) linearly. This means that many lenses can be converted not only on focal length, but also for f-stop, to estimate the total light gathering power of the system, and the output "look" of the image. Full frame sensors (~36mm x 24mm) are most frequently used in the photography world as a standard comparison point. For example, a 50mm 1.4 lens gives 50mm 1.4 on full frame, but that same lens on an aps-c sensor (like a fuji X, sony 6xxx, canon 7d, etc.) would not only give a cropped 75mm [full frame] focal length equivalence, it would also give the depth of field of a 75mm _2.0_ lens [on full frame], not 75mm 1.4. At the same time, the exposure would still benefit from the light gathered at f1.4. This is why many say that smaller sensors give a larger depth of field (more in focus, less out of focus background). In reality, this is due to the lens aperture being measured only as a ratio to the sensor size. Finally, the smaller aps-c sensor will give a larger depth of field at the same f stop, but may also give higher noise at the same ISO (to a similarly advanced full frame sensor). This means that an aps-c camera takes the exact same image when it has ~1 more f stop, ~33% less focal length, ~1 stop lower ISO to the full frame system. A big confusion around any of this "equivalence" discussion is that sometimes people mean equivalence for lens "look", and other times, they mean equivalence for exposure, while others may be talking about absolute image quality and noise. They're actually all related, though much of this discussion isn't important to real world photography.

tomc1985 6y ago

I recently switched from the mid-range Nikon 24-120 f/4 to the high-end 24-70 f/2.8. Yes the high-end lens is also a stop brighter, but you're missing the point that almost everything about the optics is dramatically improved. The 24-70 is noticeably sharper, even in the corners, has superior bokeh, has much better and more-easily correctable color fringing, super accurate AF (due to the wider aperture), nearly no vignetting, much better blowout characteristics, and much better distortion at wide angles. More importantly, those things combine to make a certain je nais sai quoi that makes photos taken with it seem to have much higher quality. I took a quick test shot of my dog when I got it and my sister remarked that she could practically feel the dog with her eyes, just looking at the photo. Nobody has ever said that about pictures of the dog that I took with the old lens, even if I spent considerable time trying to get lighting right and the dog to hold still. My old lens ruined a bunch of shots I took in a forest that required running at the extreme edge of its settings. This new lens doesn't look like it will do that.

ska 6y ago

build quality and f-stops isn't close to all that is different. Actual light transfer (e.g. t-stops in cine, but less quantitatively in SLRs, say - some lenses are brighter than others), sharpness, chromatic aberration, spatial aberration, focal speed and accuracy (assuming autofocus), consistency across the telephoto range (not for primes, obviously) - some lenses will have not just differet f-stops at different lengths, but really different characteristics. This doesn't even get into the subjective aspects (e.g. "bokeh") that some people care a lot about.