How to tempt CW :)

[RichNY]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=282683

[cdifoto]

Doesn't make me drool but the dungeons I'm sometimes in really make me wish for f one point zip. :D The new 50 is more affordable though at f/1.2 even though it's not affordable either. :eek:

[forno]

So what the link about, I aint registered over there

[GaryS]

Some guy is selling his 50mm f1.0. $5,000 US, OBO.

Yikes!

[forno]

Some guy is selling his 50mm f1.0. $5,000 US, OBO.

Yikes!

Holy crap, thats a 1d mkII AND a 70-200:p

[DonSchap]

Here's a posted pic or two ... get the plastic out.

20831

20832

Who needs a diaphragm?

Can't you just feel the light being sucked right out of the room! :eek:

[adam75south]

Holy crap, thats a 1d mkII AND a 70-200:p
i like the way you think.

[forno]

OK, I am not getting into a to and fro about the actual cost of the item, but what I am asking is what makes that lens cost more than 3 times what a 70-200 2.8 IS does??

To me there appears to be more manufacturing complexity and materials involved in the 70-200 yet the prime costs so much more??

[DonSchap]

That's a darn good question, Forno ... and thanks for asking.

Uh, next?

[coldrain]

OK, I am not getting into a to and fro about the actual cost of the item, but what I am asking is what makes that lens cost more than 3 times what a 70-200 2.8 IS does??

To me there appears to be more manufacturing complexity and materials involved in the 70-200 yet the prime costs so much more??
Two things:
1. the optical elements required to make an f1 50mm lens are just that expensive to produce. The same reason why the Canon 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 are very expensive. And the same reason why you don't see other manufacturers make lenses like this.

2. Since the lens was very expensive and quite idiosyncratic, and therefor was produced in very low numbers. Low availabilty and high demand by a growing userbase keep the price of this lens up.

[cwphoto]

Yeah nice lens - ridiculous price.

These were half that price new when they came out.

In the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan: "Tell him he's dreaming"... :D

[forno]

Two things:
1. the optical elements required to make an f1 50mm lens are just that expensive to produce. The same reason why the Canon 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 are very expensive. And the same reason why you don't see other manufacturers make lenses like this.

2. Since the lens was very expensive and quite idiosyncratic, and therefor was produced in very low numbers. Low availabilty and high demand by a growing userbase keep the price of this lens up.

Why, Yes they probably have to be bigger in diameter to allow for the extra stop, but the shear amount of glass and IS system in for example a 300 2.8 IS is huge.

Your second point is more relevant IMO

[forno]

Yeah nice lens - ridiculous price.

These were half that price new when they came out.

In the immortal words of Darryl Kerrigan: "Tell him he's dreaming"... :D

:D :D . Funny flick

[adam75south]

from what i saw in a review, it isn't a very sharp lens either.

[VTEC_EATER]

I would imaging that most lenses are not that sharp at F/1.0. Not much focal plane to work with. Maybe a centimeter?