Why would the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS II be cheaper than the first version?

Question

I was about to order the Canon EFS 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens from Amazon, when I learned about the difference between a Grey Market / Imported versions. Not only that, I saw that there is a version II available, and the weird thing is that the first version is being sold for $240 in Amazon, while version II is being sold for $183.

I googled around to see if the second version had any compromises or got downgraded someway to make it cheaper, but it doesn't appear so. My question is..is there a reason why the first version would be better or more expensive?

Here are the links:

Version I ($240) Version II ($183)

Asked by GR7

Answer

Price Difference

The list price is the same for both the lenses ($299).

Version I is sold by Amazon, but version II is sold by PHOTOTECH through Amazon. Maybe PHOTOTECH can give higher discounts due to a favourable deal they have with Canon, a stock clearance sale or some other reason. The price difference has nothing to do with the capacities of these lenses but with the seller.

Physical Difference

For the physical differences between the two lenses, see this question.

Answered by Bart Arondson

Check more discussion of this question.

How to respond to requests to commercially use one's photos without compensation?

Question

I am an amateur photographer and every now and then, I get an email along these lines:

Hi there, I really like your photo of X [LINK] and would like to use it in my/our magazine/brochure/website. Unfortunately I don't have a budget to pay you for the use of the image. Would you still be ok if I used this photo?

I always like when people want to use my photos, but I don't allow commercial use without permission. I license them under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license.
If it's clearly a commercial project they want to use the photo for, I feel like I should be paid.

I never quite know what's a good way to respond.

1. Do you explain why you think you should be compensated or do you just say that they can purchase it for a certain amount of money?
2. What's a good price to ask (I guess that's really hard to answer, but a minimum price for example, would be really handy to know)?
3. Do you publicly list your prices somewhere, so people can find out themselves without asking you?
4. Is it realistic at all to think people are willing to pay for photos?

I would like to sell my photo and I don't want to turn someone down right away with completely unrealistic prices and the like. However, if they are not willing to compensate me at all, I am ok with them not using my photo.

Asked by Daniel Pietzsch

Answer

You absolutely should be paid. And not only that, you absolutely have the right to protect your work. There are dangers associated with offering "free use" of your work, as once you do, you can never really tell how far your work may be distributed "for free". The company you license it to may turn around and license another company to create some design with it. Once its out "in the corporate wild", you could lose control of it entirely.

As for "not having a budget", doubtful. I worked for a company that did a lot of graphic design for a couple years. I hated the company as they practiced ethically and morally borderline and often out right wrong practices on an all too frequent basis. One of their tactics was to search for photography online and when they found something they liked, they would send out a sob-story email like the one you got. They leeched more work off of more desperate and unaware photographers than I could count. Whenever they couldn't get something for free, they would either offer money, or find something not free and pay for it. They certainly had a budget for such things, and a large one at that.

Your work is you. It's your style. It's an expression of you. It should require compensation for use. Don't let the snide, underhanded tactics of a greedy corporation leave you without control of your art or the compensation you deserve. Ask for reasonable compensation, and make sure you supply a proper commercial use license to limit how far they can "internally distribute" you work, so you don't lose control over who actually has what rights to it.

So, to your specific points:

1. Simply ask that they pay for its use, and be clear, in writing with a proper license, about what "use" means. Don't give them freedom to use it as they please. Make sure they use it only for the specific case they need it for right now. Make them pay you again for additional use for different purposes. Alternatively, ask for a LOT of money for the right to use it as they please for as long as they please (Perpetual, limitless.)

2. "How much" is pretty subjective. Its something you could determine based on the company and their intended usage. You could simply put together a standard price list for your work and various usage scenarios. Factor in your effort, how much value you would give the photo yourself, and how much use the company expects to get. If they only expect to use it in one specific case for one specific thing that may have a limited timeframe of existence, you might ask for a lower price. If they expect perpetual usage rights without limitation, and/or the right to license its use to someone else who may use it in work done for the company, you should ask for much more. Perpetual usage is the holy grail of usage rights...it really shouldn't come cheap. How "cheap" or "expensive" depends on how you think your work compares to top notch professional work. You'd probably need to do some research to figure out where your work might fit on a "pricing scale". If you have never sold anything before and think you might have a hard time selling it at what you would consider a fair price, consider lowering your prices a bit until you have an established reputation.

3. Entirely up to you. Depends on how you want to sell your work, either on a case-by-case basis, or as a key part of your professional work as a photographer. If the purpose of your photography is to provide high quality stock photos for fixed prices for specific terms of usage, you probably want to create a web site that has examples of your work and your price list. One thing to note...NOT having a price list is often beneficial, as you can negotiate price on a sale by sale basis. Some companies may be willing to pay more, some are going to be rather stingy. If you are just starting out, you might find a lot of value in keeping your prices fluid and learn what the sweet spot is that sells the most work at the highest possible price. Once you have established an average, you'll be better equipped to produce a readily available price list.

4. Absolutely. The amount you might get for photography today is subjective, and less than it was a number of years ago, which was itself significantly less than a number of years before that (before the age of ubiquitous, cheap digital stock and oppressive bullies like Getty Images and co.) A few years from now you may find that its harder to get as good a price as you might want today. Sadly, the state of affairs with for-pay photography is there are too many cheap photographers who just want a microsecond of fame and recognition, and are all too willing to give their work up for free. That has put some severe downward pressure on prices for photographic work. You can probably reverse that trend for your own work if you establish yourself as someone who produces very high quality photography worthy of the price. However yes...it is realistic to think that people and companies will pay for photography these days.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is there a big price difference between Instax mini and Instax wide?

Question

I'm looking into buying an instant camera, and I'm thinking about an Instax camera of some kind. However, Instax mini seems to be much more popular than the Instax wide format. However, the price of the film is almost the same (wide is 22 euro per 20 takes, and mini is about 20 euro/20). Also, the mini format support much more cameras (I only found one camera for the wide format).

So I'm thinking, why this difference? Is mini just way cooler; or will they stop producing the wide format film?

Answer

Social trends may play a role here. People seem to have been in love with "mini" for some time, particularly the types who might use the Instax cameras. I think there is also an atmosphere of style around this type of photography, and small seems to be ideal (Polaroid has been hugely popular for decades, and its photos were always fairly small....its an artistic and aesthetic appeal thing, I think.)

From an economic standpoint, if socially people prefer the "mini", that would increase demand for mini-compatible film. That boils down to simple supply and demand, which might be why a box of 20 minis is 20 euro, while a box of 20 wide is 22 euro. Also from an economic standpoint, it can be very difficult to tell why a film might be discontinued, or whether it may be discontinued forever. Fuji discontinued their Velvia 50 for a while, and popular demand for it made them bring it back only two years later, and its still a tremendously popular film for landscape photographers and pretty much anyone who wants rich, warm color from film. Similarly, Polaroid film was discontinued a few years ago, largely for economic reasons...a down economy, considerable increases in manufacturing expense, fewer buyers (even though its still quite popular), and general competitive struggles for Polaroid as a company in general. Its unknown whether official Polaroid film will ever be produced again (there has been some mention of a return of polaroid instant film cameras, but nothing seems concrete), however there are some dedicated and concerted efforts to produce it independently, to satisfy the desires of those who have and still do love the aesthetic and artistic appeal of Polaroid film.

So, one can never say what may happen with any particular type of film, and whether any significant changes may be permanent or not...it all depends on the social trends and economic viability of the times.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do lens prices compare for Nikon and Canon?

Question

I am about to buy a new DSLR and shortlisted the two models, Nikon D5100 and Canon 550D. I ready to buy the Nikon model(more expensive) but learned that Nikon lenses are much more expensive than Canon lenses, is this true? I compared the cost of 50mm prime lens from Canon and Nikon and noticed that the Nikon prime lens with motor is almost twice as costly than the Canon lens. However there was a manual focus lens that was of similar cost as Canon. This was very disappointing to me.

Are Nikon and Canon equivalent lenses with built in autofocus motor priced differently? Lens costs are important for me so I wanted to confirm this.

I also have another question :From the Pics that I have seen on Flickr it seems that Nikon Pics have more saturated Color than Canon. Is it true? Will it be possible to take similar Pics from Canon 550D?

Answer

I suspect that much of the reason for the AF lens price difference boils down to this: Canon has always had autofocus motors in their EF-mount lenses, there never was an EF mount camera with a built-in focus motor. As such, they have a lot of really old AF lens models still in production, like the 50/1.8.

Nikon, on the other hand, has always had autofocus motors in their camera bodies. As such, their old lens designs, while as cheap as equivalent Canon ones, do not have built-in AF motors. (No need for one, they could just use the AF motor in the camera!) However, the consumer-level Nikon camera bodies made in recent years do not have built-in AF motors. And it was only when this happened that there was any reason for Nikon to start making lenses with AF motors (excepting some pro-level lenses that had built-in focus motors for added speed and low noise).

In other words, for a Nikon lens to have a built-in AF motor pretty much guarantees that the lens is a pretty recent one. A similar Canon lens can easily be a twenty year old design that is still in production. And new lenses are more expensive than old lenses, that is just how it is. If you compare the price on a recently designed Canon lens, like the 24/1.4L mk II, with the equivalent Nikon lens, the price is not all that different.

There is an upside to having a recently designed lens though: It is likely to behave somewhat better on a digital camera than an old one that was designed to be used with film. So you do get some benefits for the extra money.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do any stock photography sites pay 100% of sales out to photographers?

Question

I've come over from Stack Overflow to see if anyone here uses stock photography/microstock sites and knows if any of the many out there currently give 100% of sales to photographers?

Obviously they've got to make money somehow and I know some do monthly subscriptions to photographers to host their images but I can't find any that charge a small upload fee to add images and pay out 100%.

I work for a design agency in Brighton and we recently sourced 7 images for a client for £4K and the photographer only sees something like 20% of this and it seemed a bit unfair.

EDIT: Amending the question, if it were a well used site would you USE a site where you paid a small fee for each photo you upload (either annually or a one off) and kept 100% of the proceeds?

Answer

You will find the larger agencies like Getty are reducing their commissions to photographers, to around 35%.

I know one of the smaller agencies offer a better rate.

Local Stock ## (100% commission)

However I don't know if they actually sell many.

Put it this way, I would rather have images at 35% commission that get sold and shown to a very wide audience around the world than get 100% of a very small UK market.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are some lenses so expensive?

Question

I have read about and seen many lenses that are very expensive; upwards of 8-10 thousand (US) dollars. I ran across this lens and it was priced at an incredible 26,000 dollars. And this one at 102,000! Why do you really need a lens that costs that much? And what makes it so special that it costs that much?

Bottom Line - Is a lens of that price really worth the money vs a 4-8 thousand dollar lens for most applicable uses?

I am not even talking about the 2,000,000 USD Lens!

Answer

This article on the super-expensive lens you mention, the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6, has has some details that might put the price into perspective:

The new EF 1200 was then marketed by Canon in July, 1993 with an annual production volume of around 2 (that's right - "two") lenses. The EF 1200 L was available by special order with lead times running about 18 months.

Why such a long lead time? For one reason, it takes nearly a year to grow fluorite crystals large enough to be ground and polished for use in this lens. In addition, the lens is "virtually hand-made".

A very niche market, expensive materials, and hand-made. The price is starting to sound completely justified to me after all.

And also from the article, who owns copies of this lens? Sports Illustrated (for the Olympics), National Geographic, and, basically, spy agencies. The expense isn't a big deal when it fills a need.

The relatively less-expensive Sigma lens, and in-production $10k Canon and Nikon lenses, are basically the same story on a smaller scale. Hard to make, expensive materials, not much demand — and there you go.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does the Canon 1D Mark III cost more than the 1D Mark IV?

Question

Why does the Canon 1D Mark III cost more than the 1D Mark IV ? According to snapsort it looks like the Mark IV is better.

Mark 3: $7995 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-1D-Mark-III-Digital/dp/B000NP1C5O/

Mark 4: $5399 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV/dp/B002TG3ZYQ/

And also on Canon's website:

Answer

The EOS 1Ds Mark III is Canon's top-of-the-line full-frame DSLR: 21MP; 45 AF points; dual DIGIC III processors.

The EOS 1D Mark IV (that's 1D, not 1Ds) uses a 28.1 × 18.7mm sensor which is smaller than a 36 x 24mm full-frame, but bigger than the 22.3 × 14.9 mm sensor in the Rebel, 60D, 7D, etc.

The main tradeoff with the 1D Mark IV vs. the 1Ds is that you get a slightly lower image quality but continuous 10 fps shooting vs. only 5 fps on the 1Ds.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are camera bodies relatively more expensive to rent than lenses?

Question

Considering that the lenses often cost significantly more than the body, why does it cost more to rent a body than the lens?

For instance, a local rental place in Toronto has the Nikon D7000 body for rent for $105/day, and the body costs just over $1000.

The same place rents the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8G VRII lens for only $40/day, but the lens costs well over $2000.

I think renting the lens has value, but renting a body seems expensive.

Answer

All speculation:

Bodies go out of date more quickly, so the store will be renting it out for a shorter time period. In order to get an equal return on investment they charge more per rental.

Lenses are more reliable (less likely to break) assuming that the renter handles each with care.

And perhaps there is more demand for renting lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

Image Stabilization in Lens vs Body: Which is Cheaper?

Question

Is Image Stabilization better in the lens or the body? Someone already asked that.

But I'm trying to make a purchasing decision. It seems that the short answer to my title question is that it's cheaper to put image stabilization in the body since you don't have to pay for it with each lens. But somehow that's not enough for me.

I guess I'm wondering how much cheaper it is. I would think it depends on what kind of equipment I purchase. I'm considering purchasing an entry level DSLR (Canon Rebel EOS T2i or ... preferably cheaper) I would probably stick with no more than two lenses. (I'm thinking one zoom lens and one "regular" lens.)

I'd love to price out two comparable sets of equipment, but I don't know enough about photography to really know if the lenses/cameras are of comparable quality. Can someone suggest a set of lenses cameras for this price comparison?

What brands put image stabilization in the camera?

Answer

You're right! This really depends on the specifics.

For some lenses, like the Pentax Limited series, but basically small prime lenses in general, a lens-based approach just wouldn't be possible at any price. I don't think Canon offers any prime lenses with IS at a focal length under 100mm, and Nikon's 85mm is their only exception to the same rule. Arguably, image stabilization is less important for wider lenses, but the fact remains: if you want image stabilization in a wide or normal prime — or even a short telephoto — in-body is the only way to pay for it.

So, if that appeals to you, in-body is very much the way to go.

If you're just looking to get the setup you describe — one zoom lens with IS and a prime, and you're done, and if you decide that you don't care about IS for the prime, there's really not much of a difference. Either way you're just buying IS one time, and there are some reasonably-priced entry-level zooms with the feature. Even if you buy two such lenses, the price difference due to other factors might be bigger.

If you're looking for a fast, pro telephoto zoom, the situation is different — but not uncomplicated, because we can't compare apples to apples. Canon's image stabilized pro 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is about $1000 more than the non-IS version, and the Nikon equivalents (there, the non-IS version is 80-200mm) have a comparable price spread. But, Sony's equivalent lens is in the ballpark of the pricier choices, and it's hard to tell if the couple-hundred in savings is due to IS or some other decision. And Pentax doesn't even make 70-200mm lens anymore, instead of focusing on the designed-for-APS-C 50-135mm. So is in-body IS a win here? Hard to say!

So, what I'd suggest is to take a look at How much do lens lineups vary across platforms? and the answers there, and think about what you expect your total lens system to look like, and think from there.

But — and I can't stress this enough! — you can't really plan until you get your camera and start shooting and discover what you like. When I decided on a camera brand, I sat down and made a chart of what lenses I would theoretically buy to cover this and that focal range, and plotted out my future purchases. Turns out, I love those tiny prime lenses I mentioned above, of which only one was on my imaginary roadmap. Now that's all I have! (Plus some older Pentax primes and a Lensbaby — also image stabilized.)

And, I value having those primes all stabilized. But if that weren't my thing, it might not be important at all. I have a friend who stretched his budget and immediately started out with the Canon pro-level 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (the later with VR), and he's been so happy actually taking photographs that he hasn't once stopped to stress about what other lenses to buy.

Check more discussion of this question.

What performance-related factors make a Leica camera so expensive?

Question

I just saw a Leica M9 priced at 6995 USD, and a Leica M8 at 6295 USD. This is similar to the price for a high-end Nikon D3X or a Canon 1D Mark IV. So, I am trying to compare the specs, but can't get some useful information (at least in my eyes as a beginner).

What would make me prefer an M8 or M9 over a D3x or 1D? Performance-wise that is, not because Leica is more compact or it has a tougher frame — or because it just is Leica.

Answer

Leica is a luxury brand with much smaller production runs than the big players in the camera industry.

Low volumes lead to high prices, especially since research and development costs have to be covered. In addition, there's more manual labor involved in manufacturing Leica cameras and lenses. This labor is German, which means higher wages and thus higher prices.

The luxury part translates into exclusivity. A large part of the draw of Leica is that not everyone can afford one. So even if Leica could lower their prices, it would not necessarily translate to lower prices.

Why would you prefer a Leica? The lenses are unique, in for far as no other manufacturer makes a rangefinder camera system. There's no DSLR equivalent to the Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4, for example, or the Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95. However, you will have to pay many times more than the body to get one of these lenses.

Some people prefer the rangefinder for focusing and composing. The camera can be more unobtrusive, but this is less true now when it costs as much as a used car.

For a more detailed look at the differences between rangefinders and (D)SLRs, see this question and answer.

I would say that if you're a long-time Leica shooter, you'd prefer a digital M over a DSLR simply because you can use your existing lenses. If you're starting out, it's a lot of money to pay for some pretty intangible benefits.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it possible to make a 35mm digital camera with the same size / weight / price as a 35mm film camera?

Question

Why are full-frame digital cameras huge, heavy, $6000 beasts when 35mm film cameras fit in a pocket and cost $6?

Are full-frame cameras getting smaller, lighter and/or cheaper? If not, why?

If there are the technological or physical limitations, what are they?

Answer

When comparing film to digital cameras, you need to compare apples to apples. I searched for the EOS 1, EOS 1Ds and EOS 1DsMk3 and found a surprising fact: the EOS 1, when equipped with the battery and motor drive extender (grip) which brings it to about the same physical size as the EOS 1Ds/1DsMk3, becomes almost the same weight and even heavier!

• EOS 1: 1450g
• EOS 1Ds: 1585g
• EOS 1DsMk3: 1385g

More modern materials enable the built of lighter bodies. OTOH, more bells-and-whistles add somewhat to the weight. I assume the greatest contributor is the introduction of BIG LCD backs.

Check more discussion of this question.

When is the best time to buy a camera?

Question

I've read on a forum that after a new camera is launched one should wait about 6 months before buying it, because the it'll wear out the "novelty price" and it won't get much cheaper after that. Is it true?

I'm planning to buy a Nikon D3100.

Answer

If cost is your biggest concern, the best time to buy a model of camera is when the next one comes out. Then you can purchase the 'old' model at a discount, or even better, buy gently used from those that are desperate for the new model. This requires patience and self-control, which among us camera geeks, can be in short supply as it relates to camera gear.

This works with cars too ;)

Check more discussion of this question.

Are Kata bags worth their price?

Question

I've outgrown my modest bag and now I'm going on vacation, I need a new one. I need a backpack which can double as a cabin luggage (will need to hold laptop, D90, lenses, strobes, and some other gadgets), carrying the camera plus some food and clothing on short hikes, and camera storage at home. Kata has some great offers, like the Owl 272 pl or the Bumblebee 220 pl, but all the models I liked cost 180 to 280 Euro, which is the price of a decent prime lens. Other producers offer models in similar sizes at half or two thirds Kata's prices, the Lowepro Vertex 100 AW makes a good impression.

I haven't seen any of the bags with my eyes and will order over the Internet. I have the right to send it back if I don't like it, but as they are not always in stock, buying a second model if the first disappoints me could take too long, in the worst case it won't arrive before I fly.

So if you have had any hands-on experience with Kata bags (in general, not only the models I linked): do they have any tangible benefits over comparable models from other manufacturers, or is the higher price just a premium paid for owning a famous brand? Or do you know of any reliable test reports (not Amazon reviews, but tests made by reliable pro magazines) which confirm or disprove the higher Kata quality?

Answer

In my opinion, yes they are. But "worth the price" is something that is highly subjective.

The sad fact is that specialty bags carry a higher price, just because.

You have to ask yourself, how often do you plan on making use of it?

Kata bags are more comfortable, and are more rigid than Lowepro. My first camera backpack was a lowepro and I didn't like it. The inserts felt cheap, and while there was room for my gear at the time, the bag was bulky and didn't do a good job of distributing the weight.

I also found that Kata had a much nicer construction quality compared to lowepro.

I travel a lot with my gear, so for me, buying a nicer bag was important. I moved to the Crumpler line, because I found their quality to be top notch (even if it's a higher price).

Check more discussion of this question.

How much pay to a model in a session of photos for stock?

Question

I want make a photo project to send to a stock photography agency, but I don't know what I should pay to a model for signing the model release.

Pay by photo, by hour, or in some other way?

Answer

It sounds like you haven't worked much with models. If not, it'll be an interesting journey. It's convenient to make a broad categorization of models into two groups: 1) Professional models, represented by an agency; and 2) People who model but are unrepresented, part-time, etc. If you want to be reasonably sure your model will be on location when he or she is supposed to and that you are getting what you pay for, agency models are for you. If you are working on spec, as with stock photography, you may be willing to trade the reliability of a model with a pedigree for a less expensive one.

To start with, you need a clear description of what you plan to do, where, for how long, whether the model is providing wardrobe, makeup, styling or if you will have hair, stylist, etc. on set. Be sure to mention up front whether there will be any unusual requests of the model because if your model is uncomfortable or feels you sprung something on him or her, the shoot will not go as well as if they are prepared.

In the first case, you will negotiate rates with the agency and it will be quite cut and dried. The latter case (and this is where modelmayhem.com comes in) gives you quite a range of talent and professionalism. The models range from, to be blunt, flaky to very responsible. They can be extremely talented or totally clueless. With these models, it's obviously important to have your description, but you'll want to meet them first and take a few test shots, even with your cell phone, just to see if you can communicate and work with them. If you decide the answer is yes, then you determine a rate.

There is no standard rate and stock photography is very speculative. So is modeling. Many of the Model Mayhem models are professional and serious about making a living modeling. Others, not so much. The pros will have either hourly or day rates and won't be afraid to quote them (they should be able to do this based on your description). Novices may be happy to let you set their rate. Many will work in exchange for some of the outtake images.

When you evaluate this, please bear in mind the total projected value of the shoot to you and measure your modeling fee against how much you expect to earn. If modeling and other expenses (equipment, transportation, meals, etc.) exceed what you expect to make from the shoot, just don't do it.

I know I've strayed quite a ways from the original question. I hope this is useful.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are wide-angle lenses so much more expensive?

Question

What is it about wide-angle lenses that makes them so much more expensive than an equivalent-quality tele or prime lens? Take the Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM, for example. RRP is nearly £1,000!

Are they very much more difficult/expensive to make? I'd dearly love to get into wide-angle photography, so how can I get the shots I want without having to pay such a large amount of money?

Answer

Firstly I wouldn't let the recommended retail price dissuade you — the 10-22 can be snapped up for £570 online. To answer the second part of your question:

how can I get the shots I want without having to pay such a large amount of money?

I would look at the non-Canon brand wideangles, such as the Tamron 10-22 f/3.4-4.5 for £337 or the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 for £372. Also consider the used market - wideangle photography doesn't have to be as expensive as you think!

But yes, in general wide angle lenses are expensive.

This is partially due to the design, and expectations placed on the lens. Any lens with a focal length shorter than the flange-focal distance (the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor, also called the registration distance, I think it's 42mm on a Canon) has to employ a retrofocal design, which basically means it's a normal lens with a reverse telephoto stuck on the back. The extra elements required adds to the cost and makes the lens more difficult to design and manufacture.

Compare the design of the EF 14mm f/2.8 (top) to the EF 50mm f/1.8 (middle) and EF 100mm f/2.0 (bottom)

EF 14 f/2.8

EF 50mm f/1.8

EF 100mm f/2.0

_{images copyright Canon inc.}

The 14mm is by far the most complicated, and you can clearly see the retrofocal elements at the rear. The 50mm is a simple symmetric design with only 6 elements. For completeness I've added the 100mm, as it's a telephoto design which allows the lens assembly to be shorter than the focal length (it's only 73mm long) for mainly practical reasons/cost. The reversed telephoto section of the 14mm does the opposite and makes the lens longer than it's focal length which makes room for the mirror in an SLR see this question for more on telephotos: Is there construction-agnostic term for a lens with a long focal length?

The other part of the problem stems from what you're asking the lens to do — bend light from a huge number of different angles and focus it on a single rectangular plane. Any lens at the edge of the performance envelope, be it wide, long, aperture will be expensive. As different wavelengths of light bend at different rates you have to work very hard to avoid chromatic aberration where the constituent colours of light split up and fail to align on the sensor. Combating this requires aspherical elements (coloured green in the 14mm diagram above. It's easy to grind glass into a sphere (simply spin it in front of a polisher) but to grind parabolic and other aspherical profiles is much harder (and therefore expensive). Wide angle designs also employs ultra-low dispersion glass for sharpness and contrast.

Telephotos can be just as expensive, but for different reasons. Light doesn't have to bend as far, so the design is simpler but this time the pure size of the glass elements required for a decent aperture (remember that f/2.8 means the [apparent] size of the aperture must be about one third of the focal length, which becomes really quite large once you go past 200mm or so) makes the elements expensive to produce (at this size dispersion & scattering is a big problem so UD glass and fluorite have to be used) and creates engineering difficulties in moving them around (motors and lens barrels have to be larger and stronger).

50mm is the sweet spot of lens design for 35mm SLRs, wide enough that the size of the elements required to maintain a wide aperture are still relatively small, but not so wide a retrofocal design is needed. This is why 50mm primes are such good value.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is this a good polariser and is it for an appropriate price?

Question

I'm thinking about purchasing Hoya HD 58mm Circular Polariser and I was wondering whether it's a good choice and also whether it's for an appropriate price. What do you guys think?

Answer

Yes, this is an excellent polarizer. Probably the best there is and certainly the best one I own. I paid much more than that for the 77mm.

Hoya HD polarizers let about 1 stop more light pass through than normal or multi-coated ones. This is a tremendous advantage.

Check more discussion of this question.

What should one be aware of when taking pictures at work, but not as one's primary role?

Question

I took a few pictures around work and they were used on our website (more here). I've just been asked to do some shots of the executives, and it looks like there may be more requests like this. Any advice?

• Money came up. What's a fair price? Pay per shoot, or increase salary?
• Rights agreement — any gotchas I should look out for?
• Other stuff I should think about?

Answer

This greatly depends on your intentions, if you intend to become a full time photographer then drawing up an agreement would be a very worthwhile endeavour. I'm not a lawyer but in that case you'd probably want to ask to retain the rights to use photos for promotional purposes for use on your website etc.

If you don't then I'd suggest specifying a nominal fee of say 150CDN (you don't say how many photos we're taken) on the understanding any more sets of photos will incur a further fee. If you take this route you're being rewarded monetarily for your time and investment in equipment but also by being seen as performing an act of good will to the company because you're cheaper than getting in a professional photographer. I'd be wary of asking for an increase of salary because that implies that you would become 'official company photographer' and as great as this sounds that might affect your career by taking your time from your main position.

Check more discussion of this question.

Really? Why does a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 cost almost $2,000?

Question

I am trying to price out a 35mm f/1.4 lens for my Nikon D7000 and I am shocked to find that B&H sells them for almost $2,000, whereas the f/1.8 sells for a couple hundred.

Am I looking at the wrong things?

Here is an example of the two I found... am I way off base? I am just trying to find the perfect 35mm f/1.4 for my Nikon D7000.

Edit: I ended up getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and I love it! Thanks for the help, everyone. Holding both in my hand, I felt the Sigma to be much more substantial. It's way larger and heavier then the Nikon.

Low cost lens, f/1.8

High cost lens, f/1.4

Answer

Welcome to the wonderful world of retrofocus lenses. As difficult as it is to create any lens that focuses all of the wavelengths of light at the same point (and that gets more difficult as the lens gets wider in any case), there's more than that going on in most wide-angle lenses* for SLRs. Pentax offers a wonderful example of the transition -- they have a 40mm "pancake" lens that is about as small as a colour-corrected lens can be, and they accomplish that by restricting the maximum aperture to f/2.8 and choosing a focal length that almost exactly matches the distance from the film/sensor to the lens mounting surface.

When the focal length of the lens gets any shorter than that distance, you actually need two different "lenses" -- one that acts like, say, a 35mm lens in front of the camera, and another that acts like a longer lens between the sensor and the wide-angle lens. Both of these lens groups require more correction the wider the lens gets (light rays refracted from the periphery of the lens are bent more than rays passing through the center, and are subject to more chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, coma, etc.). That means more corrective lens elements, often more complicated focusing mechanisms to change the relationship between lens elements/groups, more interelement relection (which means more and better coatings) -- it all gets to be pretty messy from an engineering sense. And yes, it costs more.

Take jrista's advice: the f/1.8 is more than two stops faster than what you have now, and unless you find yourself really needing the extra 2/3 stop, keep the extra $1500. If you do need to upgrade, you can get a pretty decent trade-in on your f/1.8.

*I say most because there are some lenses (particularly older fisheyes) that actually require that you lock your mirror up before you install them. You're not likely to run into them anymore, but they exist nonetheless.

Check more discussion of this question.