Why are primes more expensive?

MuGeN

MuGeN

MuGeN

Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2008
Posts
1,679
Location
Mooching... in your house
I was having a discussion about lenses with my father in law, and he said back in the day primes were by far the cheapest and zooms were an expensive bit of kit, which makes perfect sense really so i'm just wondering why generally its the other way round now?

for example, we take most wakeboarding shots at around 200mm so a prime would be ideal to get the images as sharp as possible but 200mm prime lenses cost and arm and a leg and are pretty much all in the professional ranges (L, EX, etc)

Whats the story?

EDIT: I know there are exceptions like the ultra-cheap 50mm ƒ/1.8 and all that, but it is not the norm...
 
Last edited:
MuGeN said:
I was having a discussion about lenses with my father in law, and he said back in the day primes were by far the cheapest and zooms were an expensive bit of kit, which makes perfect sense really so i'm just wondering why generally its the other way round now?

for example, we take most wakeboarding shots at around 200mm so a prime would be ideal to get the images as sharp as possible but 200mm prime lenses cost and arm and a leg and are pretty much all in the professional ranges (L, EX, etc)

Whats the story?
Click to expand...

What lenses are you comparing them to? Primes tend to have a much wider maximum aperture which is what makes them cost more. If you compare like for like, then they are still cheaper.
 
I was under the impression it was more because lower quality zoom lenses were more widely available as zoom now being the 'norm'. Prime lenses are now only really used by enthusiasts and so with that the average quality of the lenses has gone up along with the prices... if you see what i mean. As Khan said, if you compare like for like in terms of quality, primes will still be cheaper, it's just that typically prime lenses are high quality so you have to compare them against a high quality zoom. Meh, struggling to explain myself tbh.
 
ok then yeah point taken about the aperture which makes sense so let me rephrase, why can't you get primes with more modest apertures which are more affordable? i.e. I have never seen a 200mm ƒ/4 which should sell for comfortably less than my 55-250IS which was £165?
 
MuGeN said:
ok then yeah point taken about the aperture which makes sense so let me rephrase, why can't you get primes with more modest apertures which are more affordable? i.e. I have never seen a 200mm ƒ/4 which should sell for comfortably less than my 55-250IS which was £165?
Click to expand...

Because that would completely defeat the point of a prime IMO.

Primes are sharp and fast
Zooms are not as sharp, not as fast and far more useful in terms of the range you can use.
 
MuGeN said:
ok then yeah point taken about the aperture which makes sense so let me rephrase, why can't you get primes with more modest apertures which are more affordable? i.e. I have never seen a 200mm ƒ/4 which should sell for comfortably less than my 55-250IS which was £165?
Click to expand...

I dont think thats really rephrased it all. cos your 55-250 IS is 'reaching' longer than a 200 mm and will have a smaller aperture at around f5.6 which is the compromise of that zoom lens. As Messiah Khan said its the f4 or wider aperture that you're paying for at the longer end of the zoom which the budget zooms are being compromised with.
 
Simpley put.
A prime is more expensive because of the following factors
Its generally stronger built and out of better materials
The glass is better and has better coatings to tackle the issues of CA.
They are adjusted finely to get the maximum sharpness out of them
They use faster/silent AF engines (these days)
They have bigger lenses inside them (radious of glass) to allow for larger aperture devices

Thats a quick rundown of a few points but there are other small factors.

There are cheap primes going around and this is because they are inferior to the (canon L range)
 
manufacturers build cheap zooms because people will buy them.

If you had a choice of a cheap 70-200 zoom for £200 or an 85, 130 and 200 prime for £70 each, which would you get?

Quality costs money, and there isn't much of a market for cheap low quality primes, so they are not made.
 
is there anyway to get old lenses onto modern digital SLRs? i know for a fact my dad has got a bag full of old lenses in the loft at his house so if there's some way to get em working might be worth a bit of pillaging?
 
Adapters.

Put EOS adapter in eBay. Not all mounts will be compatible but most are.

Even old Nikon F mount. See the look of disgust on purest's faces when they see you with a Canon body and Nikon lenses. :D
 
I have claimed ownership of some old lenses off my dad :D a Canon FD 135mm and Miranda 35mm ƒ2.8

I doubt they will end up in my camera bag but I still want to have a play :D - I have been looking at adapters and there seem to be 3 variations... ones that are just a metal ring adapter, ones that allow you to focus to infinity, and ones that confirm to the camera that the lens is in manual mode so you get the proper focus lock light...

could anyone advice what I should get? just want a good one really that wont do any damage to my 350D :)

EDIT: after reading up on this a bit more, it would seem that its not simply a metal non-optical adapter thats needed but actually one with corrective glass in, which don't give particularly good results :( aparently you get decent results going from old Nikon lenses to EOS but not FD to EOS... Anyone got any experience of this?
 
Last edited:
You can use those FD lenses but they will act as if they are attached via extension tubes when used with the standard non optical adapters.

The best lenses for ease of use on a canon are olympus om as you only need one adapter that you can leave on the camera, as these lenses have their own release buttons. Nikon lenses are a little bit more difficult but can still be used to great effect. To get the red light and the beep (if enabled), you will need to buy an AF-confirm adapter that has a chip attached that communicates with the camera body. (most of them tell the camera that you have a 50mm f2)

If you want to try some older lenses on your dslr take a look at contax, olympus OM, Nikon F & pentax M42. Tamron adaptall-II lenses are also a good option as they have their own set of mounts for the lenses to allow them to attach to virtually any brand of camera. Leica R is also quite possible as is pentax K but both of these systems tend to be quite expensive.

I have been using manual lenses for nearly two years, mostly because i wanted the best quality but could not afford to have it in the form of a canon lens with AF. I also only use prime lenses, generally 17mm 24mm 35mm 50mm 85mm 135mm 180mm and 300mm. Though i somethimes dump the 24 and the 135 to save some weight, apart from the 17mm which is f3.5 all of those lenses are f2.8 or faster. The 35, 50 and 85 are all f1.4 which is not possible with a zoom.
 
great advice thanks Kei :)

So which camera are you using and which make of lenses do you favour?
 
At present i use a canon EOS 20D for digital, and either an EOS 3, a Nikon F5 or a Mamiya 645 for film depending on what i'm trying to achieve.

As for lenses, i favour Contax which are Carl Zeiss lenses. I have never seen anything quite as sharp as these before. Olympus OM takes 2nd as they produced excellent wide-angle lenses that are all as small as a 50mm lens, almost like pancake lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom