Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk> writes: > Brian > > The biggest factor determining the price of lenses overall is not > aperture but brand name. Manufacturing costs only determine whether a > company can afford to produce the lens at all for a price people will > pay. Sigma vs Canon vs Nikon vs Leica ... Actually I don't think that's true at all: for example people quite rightly pay more for medium quality Sigma lenses than for Canon junk zooms. But the answer to the original question is surely simply that aperture alone doesn't determine the quality of the lens. Thinking (off the top of my head) of Canon 50mm lenses - so no "brand" distinction - the f/1.8 is ludicrously cheap, yet of fairly high quality, since it's a very tried and tested design, the f/1.4 costs 5? times as much, and is, by all accounts a somewhat better lens (comparing the same aperture), the f/1 is ludicrously expensive and not correspondingly astonishing quality because making any f/1 lens is basically pushing the boat out. So it seems to me you largely get what you pay for (for once). Brian Chandler ---------------- geo://Sano.Japan.Planet_3 Jigsaw puzzles from Japan at: http://imaginatorium.org/shop/
