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. They don't seem very different to me, yet the price f/1.4 is far more expensive. This does't seem right. Am I way off base?
What makes the more expensive lens cost so much more?
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 reflection (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.
Remember, you were concerned about getting great image quality wide-open? There's no such thing as a free lunch. And a cheap lunch may have adequate nutrition without being gourmet. More expensive lenses use exotic elements, and a lot more glass overall. Note that the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G weighs three times as much as the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G, and is over twice as big. (The f/1.4G also covers a full-frame image circle, accounting for some of this.)
Plus, the more expensive lens has a more solid build, more aperture blades, and is probably better sealed. It likely has a faster AF motor, too. It's a top-level lens.
Lenses come in all forms, even for the same focal length. Here are the available Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lenses at B&H online. There are two manual, and one AF lens, with the latter being the $1800 lens. It appears that the AF version is new, and contains some of the most advanced optics and multicoating available, which is probably why its price tag is so high. The wide aperture, which is pretty wide for a lens of that focal length, is also a significant contributor to the cost. If you want a lot of light with good wide-open quality, you need a lot of glass, and glass is expensive.
In contrast, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 lenses from B&H are about as cheap as you can get, running about $190. The f/1.8 is 2/3rds of a stop slower than the f/1.4, so for less than a single stop less light, you can save yourself $1600. The f/1.8 should offer acceptable quality wide open, so the question you have to ask is: do you need that extra 2/3rd of a stop worth of light?
For some contrast, here is the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L lens on B&H. Its been around for a number of years, yet still costs $1350. Thats less than $500 lower than the brand spankin new Nikkor 35mm f/1.4. Simply put, light costs. If you need a lot of light, you need to be prepared to spend the money for it.
Also keep in mind that if you make a mistake it's not the end of the world! If you find the 50mm too restrictive or the f/1.8 not to enough, sell the lens and switch. You might not break even but it's not like you lost it all.
Most importantly: don't sweat not getting the 35mm f/1.4 :-).
– Tom Jan 01 '11 at 07:34The short answer, the 35 f/1.4 is more expensive than the 35 f/1.8 because:
The f/1.4 lens is full frame lens, it projects a larger image circle, and also has a larger aperture so it's a more difficult lens to design and manufacture.
Lenses with higher optical performance also tend to have better build quality elsewhere (e.g. metal bodies) and last longer.
Nikon will sell fewer f/1.4s so they need larger margins to recover the R&D cost.
People will pay the higher price.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's because it's what the market will bear.
We have no idea the R&D costs or the production costs into making such a lens--unless those people here who have speculated are, in fact, optical engineers involved in the development and mass production of such lenses, in which case I'll stand corrected. We don't know if it costs a team of fifty engineers working around the clock for two years to squeeze out that extra two stops, or one engineer made it when s/he got around to it after all the other lenses got equipped with VR. We can guess by reading between the lines in Nikon's financial statements, but we don't know.
And how are such lenses produced? Hand-made? I doubt it, but it's possible. I've heard anecdotally that Zeiss lenses are individually hand made and tuned, and it's that attention to detail that is reflected in their cost.
So while @Stan Roger's answer provides some potential optical engineering challenges that have to be overcome for such a lens, we on the outside of the production facilities have no idea if those problems were the major ones, or if solving them warrants the price. Other answers could also include interesting discussions about the exchange rates of yen to dollars, marketing projections, or other such topics. All guesswork.
Nikon feels that the lens should cost this much. I, for one, think that they're overpriced. If enough potential customers feel this way, look for price decreases in the coming months/years. If the lenses sell at their current price, then Nikon priced them accordingly (and I'll be looking for another 50mm f/1.4 equivalent for my d300).
EDIT: Not to say "I told you so", but, I told you so. Samyang just announced a 35mm 1.4 full frame lens that will retail for €379, a fraction of the Nikkor's price but with similar specs. Will it be better or worse? I'll wait until lens reviews come out. But will it be that much worse as to justify quadrupling the price for the name of Nikon? All discussions about the cost of the technology that goes into the lens, etc, are all justifications given by sales and marketing. In the final analysis, if you have a competitor willing to undercut you by this much, the perhaps you have overestimated your market.
