What Makes Expensive Camera Lenses Expensive

[@Photography-Explained]

💰Want to win $10,000? Enter the Photography Explained Awards here: 👉 PhotographyExplained.com/Awards

[@TibooPL]

Fun fact: I cooperate with one of big lens manufacture, that send me their products for tests. I asked them why some of their lenses are good but so incredible expensive, and other are crapy. They said me in the past they can use admixture for ex. lead or even thorium that make better structure of glass. Nowdays those admixtures are prohibited, so they need to use some other tehniques to get the same glass quality like before, but that makes whole process soooo more expensive than in the past.

[@nassersi]

using lead in glass is prohibited....sounds very stupid, if it is true

[@nindoninshu]

@@nassersi i think most consumer products generally aren't supposed to contain lead 😬 unless that's the main part of the product

[@nassersi]

@@nindoninshu I don't think there's a dumbass who'll eat optical lenses....if there is, one less fool.

[@EClaire.1073]

​@@nassersiand thorium is radioactive. We didn't used to be as smart as we are now, that's why we don't make lenses with lead or thorium anymore

[@markewing10]

Stock up on vintage lenses!! I got lucky and found 3 lenses that take awesome pictures for less than a hundred each.

[@feraudyh]

For info, a typical human hair is 90,000 nanometres thick.

[@v3rlon]

You missed some stuff. Making the optical glass means melting and pouring it into a mold, then letting it cool off slowly For three years. And calling a nanometer smaller than a human hair is like saying Japan is smaller than the earth. Yeah, a little bit.

[@walkersunited332]

Does that mean heat must be applied to it for the years.

[@godsinbox]

you also missed some stuff. like the fluorine coatings on the lenses has to be grown for 6 months before assembly. but the guy missed that the 'in camera electronic corrections' that fixes what would never be acceptable for sale in vintage lenses. think despicable vignetting and disgraceful levels of variable geometric distortions.

[@YoungBlaze]

you also missed some stuff too as well......... i want lens! nOW

[@mkk3a]

It's even worse. A hair has typically a diameter of 100,000 nm. Sa a nanometer is obviously 100,000x smaller. And Japan's lenght (1700 km) is about 10x smaller than Earth's radius (12,000 km). So a better comparision would be a soccer field.

[@Photography-Explained]

You guys are going deep. My background is selling endoscopic medical devices and I've been to Germany where they're manufactured. I thought my audience would like a high level view of the lens manufacturing process but looks like I should have gone deeper down the rabbit hole. I'll do a deeper dive in a future video :).

[@georgembenzi8357]

I find it a little disappointed by the negative comments here,this dude has given his supposedly best,why all these negativity!!!!????

[@martinharding]

Shots fired at "nerdy youtubers"

[@alterablebark54]

I'm kinda tired of people using human hairs as a comparison for thickness, especially just casually saying 'a nanometer is smaller than a human hair'. They're several orders of magnitude apart. Nanometers and human hairs don't even belong in the same sentence unless you're talking about how a human hair is about 80000 nanometers thick. That's like saying 'an ant is smaller than the empire state building'. When you put it like that; you can start to actually imagine how tight these tolerances have to be.

[@Photography-Explained]

I thought my audience would like a high level view of the lens manufacturing process so tried to make things relatable but looks like I should have gone deeper down the rabbit hole. My background is selling endoscopic medical devices and I've been to Germany where they're manufactured, hung out with the engineers and product specialists etc. I'll do a deeper dive in a future video :).

[@Remmerboy]

@@Photography-Explained dna is a few nanometers wide. i would think thats more impressive statement than thinner than human hair analogy

[@nindoninshu]

dang, this comments section is rough...

[@EvilEyeWeddings]

Finally somebody talking about the skill not the gear. Thank You sir!

[@Madkite]

I still use manual lenses from the 80's. Some of my best photos are done with them.

[@anupew3276]

yeah, they are also really durable, which is something Im not sure about with modern (post-DSLR) AF lenses. As we now have focus by wire, so even in manual focus mode its not focusing manualy, the moment anything happens with those electronics the lens is a useless overpriced paperweight.

[@martyzielinski1442]

Yup. I have a wide variety of new and old. New tends to be sharp. But I truly ENJOY my 50 year old Canon SSC lenses.

[@jt92]

A nanometer is smaller than a human hair by the same factor than the difference between a trip to walmart and a trip to the moon. Pretty big understatement.

[@earnieboy54]

Physics taught me why lenses can be expensive.

[@RafaelInuzuka]

"do you remember the days of manual focus ?" Yes... Yes I do.. I still use it sadly cause my camera and lens is too old

[@Photography-Explained]

Haha I've a video coming up where I'm testing a bunch of old camera gear and the manual focusing element of it has been fun to play with.

[@RafaelInuzuka]

@Photography-Explained I bet it must have been a drastic change ahah I tried it once with my Canon 1100d, I'll never try the autofocus again, had a lot of blurry pictures and was slow

[@marcpoletti9511]

It not like there was no good or excellent equipment then, good glass is not that rare. you get my respect. Besides, it not really bout the cam or glass, good photographers can use just about any cam cheap or crap and make good pics.

[@paradox...]

Meanwhile people spend thousands on manual-focus Leicas 😄

[@wildscapesph]

also the presenter looks old enough to have used manual focus lenses

[@peterreber7671]

You could have posted links to the actual manufacturing process filmed in the plant. Canon has published a few of them.

[@GasWorksISO]

It looks like Sigma factory footage.

[@paulbonge6617]

I began this journey under the tutelage of my father and in the time of film. I had to photograph only from a tripod for the first year, with a medium format sheet film camera. I had basic instruction in the use of a light meter as that was the only way to ensure I'd ever properly expose the negative I had to pay for in advance. After that year I was allowed to use his Nikon F with a "Seeing Eye Dog" TTL/through the lens metering system built in. Hand-held was like a revelation to me! I learned focusing manually on a ground glass and upside down, by moving the bellows in and out, so today as I am entirely digital, it seems lightyears away from where I started. I cannot even begin to say how different it is and how happy I am for AF and VR! Lenses are worth their weight in GOLD today!

[@Bill.Pearson]

Ugh...so much hyperbole! So many negative setups and so many obvious generalities. There is very little real information in this video. And the constant emphaticness. Exhausting.

[@Photography-Explained]

Sorry that you didn't enjoy this video Bill. I think in hindsight I could have gone deeper with it I tried to keep it reasonably high level for my audience.

[@OttoFilmStudios]

“do you remember the days of manual focus?” a lot of people in the video industry still use manual focus lol In fact, I recently sold all my AutoFocus glass, so I wasn’t locked into a certain camera ecosystem.

[@markedwards4879]

That comment made me feel very old lol. I remember being amazed at autofocus after years of taking photos with a 35mm SLR. I also remember lots of family pics where someone’s head was cut off because of the old rangefinder cameras lol.

[@paradox...]

My guy... Not everything you say needs to have an analogy

[@Sky_Watchers]

Fair lol

[@Photography-Explained]

A metaphor?

[@SebboThePotato]

It’s because the script is heavily chat GPT’d 🤮

[@247_sirazulmonir9]

​@@SebboThePotatolol

[@ph5740]

Please,less dramatic “sales-speech” storytelling and more “get to the point” facts. It makes the video tiring to watch, with something that could be a very interesting subject

[@Photography-Explained]

Haha, sorry that might just be how I'm wired. Un-ironically I own Salesman.com.

[@rickmower1136]

Really?? What a boring comment. I rather enjoyed the video and how he presented it.

[@ph5740]

@ really?

[@DanaPushie]

Lol! @ph5740, Really?

[@thealaris]

Bruh

[@peternavanac9310]

Your an excellent communicator. I communicate (speeches) for a living. You made technical, boring facts interesting. And you did it before a camera lens, without the benefit of audience feedback!

[@Aneliuse]

I really like how you explained the process of creating the glass. Very interesting 😮 Breaking the process up into steps made everything super clear and easy to understand.

[@Photography-Explained]

Thank you for the nice feedback. Really makes a difference when the team and myself see comments like yours :).

[@felixbouvet1746]

P merci j'ai bien compris comment fonctionne le système anti-reflet franchement j'avais lu sur les articles je n'ai rien compris mais avec les images et la parole je comprends mieux je retiens mieux les choses en fait ça va amplifié le réfraction et inhiber la réflexion😅😅😅 je n'ai jamais vu une verre aussi transparente ça

[@andywolf100]

My first real camera, was a Practica PL Nova 1B, that I bought second hand from a camera shop in 1978. I thought it was the bee's knees because it had a built in light meter gauge on top of the body 😂

[@KallusGarnet]

That is a great camera i hope you still have it

[@blacklistnr1]

All that work so KZbin/Netflix can compress it/show it to me at a bitrate that looks like 720p :))

[@akaseahorse]

For you, what are the best brands? I've seen that Nikon, I don't know, personally I think of Zeiss. And do you know what they do with the lenses? Or do they reuse small flaws or something? And thank you very much for the information.

[@Aashifmusheer]

are u using a Ai to write ur scripts

[@Leo_Santisteban]

I don’t get the negative comments, I loved the way you communicate seemingly boring information and make it interesting. Very informative and nicely put together!

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks Leo! Comments like this keep me and the team going mate :).

[@burnedmozzarella]

im still in awe how human can mass produce lenses

[@AluminumOxide]

2:13 thats a serious understatement. You meant thinner than 1/90000th of a human hair

[@guerrerosaurio]

I bought a canon rebel t6 7 years ago, it came with 2 lenses and still works like new

[@mx338]

This also makes me really respect my 200€ TTartisan AF lense, that surely doesn't go through such extensive testing, but still comes out great.

[@godsinbox]

costs before markup, distributor fees, government charges, in the original country and then repeated in the buyers country? it is interesting that FF lenses are more likely to be half polished, with the end price so precise as to extract the biggest margins. But if you switch off 'in camera electronic corrections', you will quickly see how compromised modern lenses are in ways that were NEVER acceptable in vintage lenses.

[@Photography-Explained]

You're right, I should have included a section on the retail mark up etc. Thanks for the feedback mate.

[@kingghidorah8106]

so you're saying newer lenses are worse? I think they're sharper and have less aberrations at the cost of disastrous light transmission and planned obsolescence with these electronics and the tinfoil E mount lenses.

[@ahsnsb]

2:14 this analogy isn't doing justice to how small a nanometer is. yes nanometer is thinner than a single strand but its so much smaller than hair that it's like saying a boing 737 is larger than a pencil sharpener. Nanometer level precession is crazy.

[@ramonarias1234]

WOW! impressive and informative video... instant subscribed!!

[@MrMacroJesseSky]

You can’t convince me your logo isn’t copying NBC

[@Photography-Explained]

OK, I won't try then.

[@mtbboy1993]

I have an expensive lens, but it's a zoom lens so it lets dust in, but seems to be an common issue.

[@orsoncart9441]

The last 60 seconds are the most important part of the video. Lens science has been the same for 50 years, all good quality lenses are basically of the same quality, light is light and polished glass is polished glass.

[@martyzielinski1442]

Not true. But if you really want to believe that.....good on ya....

[@orsoncart9441]

@@martyzielinski1442 It's true, you polish a lens the same way to get the same result today or 60 yrs ago its the same, the only difference now is that the tele lenses have special glass to aid sharpness. 50mm Carl Zeiss lens from 60 yrs ago is exactly the same as one today, light does not change what it does whan passed through glass based on time.LOL.

[@martyzielinski1442]

@@orsoncart9441 Not a chance. Glass and optical formulations are changed CONSTANTLY. A typical 50mm f2 lens was invariably a six element Plasmat design 50 years ago. Today, it’s more likely a nine to twelve element concoction with a concave front lens element. As vastly different as a modern turbo charged twin cam four cylinder engine is from some pushrod V8 from the 1970’s. Completely different animal. But like I said, believe whatever you wish. But that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

[@orsoncart9441]

@@martyzielinski1442 I don't know what you have been reading on the internet but I suggest you look at photos taken from 50 yrs ago with a quality lens, they are exactly the same as today. All marketing and it seems to be working, at least on you. LOL

[@DextanTrund]

Is this video in 24fps? Or the reduced the EV?

[@Centauri27]

Good explanation, but I wish you could've touched upon the compromises made between a pro lens vs a cheaper consumer model. Do they simply cut corners at every step?

[@martyzielinski1442]

Having scrupulously tested thousands of lenses, I have good news and bad news. The good news, quality control differs little between brands and prices. Many very inexpensive lenses are quite good. The bad news, paying $5,000 for a lens provides no greater liklihood that corners haven’t been cut. I’ve found a comparable number of “flaws” in Zeiss and Leitz optics to Tamron and Sigma. But that’s good news. Great gear can be had for very little $ outlay.

[@NetvoTV]

Hey man, my name is Johnny and I'm a freelance logo designer, would you love to have a logo redesign to looks less like NBC News logo which is going to comfuse your new audience and to be more original and still clearly photography themed and you can use it as merch print to sell to your fans too? Let me know if you interested and I would love to design it for you!

[@Photography-Explained]

NBC isn't a thing in the UK and so it's not really on my radar. Thanks for the feedback and I'll look into it.

[@NetvoTV]

@Photography-Explained I am a malaysian who haven't been to US yet and just watch a lot KZbin videos yet I can associate it with that, I thought there is some connection between you 2 which might mislead others, but is ok, I'm a freelance logo designer and I'm looking for more works, would you like me to work with you on that? PHOTOGRAPHY EXPLAINED, it will be a cool great brand name with a lot flexible and possible logo idea, I can make sure to make it in a way it will be a cool art as merchs print too. Let me know if you interested, you can focus on making your videos while having me help you redesign your logo! :-)

[@ananthapadmanabhan8795]

Should've mentioned the details of each stage..

[@allanc803]

I just watched the Sigma lens process which I found very interesting. Your video has given it more impact. I feel that when you can order a lens online and it is delivered the next day we take for granted the amount of work that is put into the research, manufacturing, marketing, then onto dealers to which there is a cost and profit passed on. Cheap to expensive lenses have a process that can accommodate all photographers. I enjoy the excitement you show in your videos.📸

[@Photography-Explained]

Thank you for the nice comment. I should have included a section on the retail markups as well.

[@allanc803]

@@Photography-Explained I feel the more you learn about photography steeper the learning curve.🤔

[@reformlabs8742]

Good video overall! However, I don't fully agree with the testing part per se. I bought a Canon RF 24-70 F/2.8 IS USM L Lens, it costed me $2,299 USD at the time, and the box arrived in good condition, nothing was out of order there, when I went to turn the barrel to zoom in, that didn't work and funny enough, I saw the reviews too and two other people had the same issue I faced.

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

Awesome video and it makes me appreciate my Sony 300mm f2.8 gm not only for his sharpness but for the piece of engineering it is!!! Thx 😉

[@FJWoods007]

And then there’s the “I had to order and return 16 times until I got a workable ‘copy’” photographer.

[@davidmantripp]

It's spelt "nerd", not "photographer" 🙂

[@rickymcc9072]

For sure contemporary lenses are fantastic. I have been an amateur photographer for 40+ years and agree we never had it so good. it's not just lenses but sensor technology now easily supasses that which film could achieve (image area size for size) with better dynamic range. Then we have post processing technology (eg Photoshop and Lightroom) with stunning capability enabling relatively new editors to better that which was ever possible from darkroom wizards of old. But, back on glass, my 1980 Olympus OM2 Zuico optics seemed pretty special, back in the day. I later bought a Vivitar Series-1 70-200mm f2.8 lens which seemed pretty good back then too (everything is relative) and a lot better than some of the lesser independents. Later, in the 90's as a Nikon shooter I marvelled how my 4 similar 80/70-200 Nikkor lenses got ever better with each new refresh (generation). Switching to Sony in 2018 I bought a smaller f4 Sony G 70-200 and in a side by side comparison (I overlapped systems for about a year) noted it better than my 4th gen Nikkor f2.8. Now my latest equiv ie Sony's GM mkii 70-200 which is easily better and lighter than any other equiv tele-zoom I have ever owned. Heck its possibly the best 70-200 ever made (I'm not looking to start a Canon vs Nikon vs Sony debate) but if not, then its more than good enough for my needs. I'm lucky in that I can afford to buy pretty much any lens I want and have shot excellent Leica, Zeiss and Sekor glass in my journey, but currently own circa 16 Sony lenses (primes and zooms) most of which, but not quite all, are superb. Sony have hired some pretty talented lens desgners and makers of late. I shoot regularly, have won many awards in UK and internationally, had work published, sold images (not for net profit, but for vanity and a contribution to overheads). I still like new kit, but 100% accept that any more new kit (with the possible exception of lighting) won't make me any better as the limiting factor is me. I just need to keep getting out, shooting more and better utilise the brilliant contemporary tools we have available and specifically that which I already own.

[@snowhite1qazse4]

Imagine for some reason we reset back to stone age. Just how difficult it is to engineer something like this again

[@sgwardo1953]

Thanks. Very informative.

[@Photography-Explained]

You're welcome!

[@GavinSeim]

Good explanation

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the kind words Gavin!

[@kkfoto]

And then we have smartphones with puny lenses and tiny sensors, and the software does the heavy work 😁

[@Photography-Explained]

Smartphones have cool lenses and Apple has some unique coatings. It's only a matter of time until they have a break through.

[@rominnooo]

@@Photography-Explained And yet they still cant remove lens reflections that are soo heavy.. i havent saw any other phone having this kind of issue, it kind of ruins the images or the video

[@okaro6595]

Software cannot fix unsharp images.

[@hanswi336]

@@okaro6595 Are you shure????? TOPAZ !

[@Teluric2]

​@@hanswi336No. It adds noise

[@matskay1971]

You forgot to mention most important points:- Marketing costs and profit margins

[@Photography-Explained]

Hey Mat, you're completely right. I should have included the marketing and retail costs. Ironically, my background is selling optical medical devices and so that side of things is what I know best. I think some kind of follow up is in order if this video does well.

[@Skillividden]

Sometimes there's even a shutter inside a lens :)

[@Photography-Explained]

Ahhhh nice one. Covering leaf shutters could be an interesting video. Thanks for the comment!

[@rhettcarboni]

Great video! Great editing! And I love the dad jokes! Earned a sub for sure!

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the sub!

[@creativelensart]

Thankyou for this sharing, i used to always wonder about this.

[@Photography-Explained]

You're very welcome. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

[@saurabhbesoya]

Check your shutter speed, the whole motion seem so jittery and unnatural. 24/25 fps with 50 shutter speed or 50/60 fps with 100/120 shutter speed is going to be best.

[@garethwilliams976]

The really expensive lenses are specialist tools with few sales and that is the main reason for their cost.

[@HokKan]

I purchased an OM System 150-400mm lens and it was decentered. The lens retails for $10,000 CAD. You can find the most recent video on my channel showing the problem in great detail. I applied for a warranty repair and the manufacturer claimed that, that amount of decentering is within manufacturing tolerances, and that it is industry standard. As an expert in this field, do you agree that, that amount of decentering for a $10,000 lens is industry standard?

[@Photography-Explained]

I'm no expert :). But if I could notice the decentering when taking photos I'd be returning it for a refund.

[@AX-sq5vm]

Lens don't matter my dear Just put the photo to ai it will make it perfect

[@ULIMENDE]

I'm wondering how it can be that smartphone lenses supposedly now appear to be equal to camera lenses and will even be superior in the future. Simply install smartphone lenses into the system camera housing and you're done.

[@hanswi336]

I certainly do not agree with your term "it doesn't ship, it doesn't leave the factory" ! A few years ago I bought a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, about 1500 Euro, which later turned out to be decentered. The repair service could not fix it. In many photo magazines and test videos I could read and hear that decentered lenses are quite often on the market. How did they slip through the quality management of the "premium lens" factories ??

[@Steyreon]

"Instaworthy" is not a good word...

[@mihan88]

There are rumors that lenses that fail testing (with minor deviations, of course) are sent to third world countries. And it is easy to believe, such reviews are not uncommon

[@lekprath]

Very informative.

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks mate :).

[@NikCan66]

Very interesting 👌

[@katoy9976]

Evet bakalım. (Fiberoptik, malzeme, incelik, yoğunluk, direnç, izolasyon vb. )

[@sallieturner8771]

Great video. Thank you.

[@Photography-Explained]

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

[@CajunReaper95]

Look I do photography as a hobby but I’ll say this wipe away the haters like you’d wipe your lenses, I feel bad for them because they have a short attention span or need it slowed till a turtles pace to understand but there’s so many other channels out there doing the same thing you do that might be better suited for their taste!

[@joanarling]

Kann sich nicht an manuelle Scharfeinstellung erinnern??? Gott, bin ich alt. Und du, lieber Moderator, hast so viel verpasst, dass ich mich über deinen Mut wundere, überhaupt öffentlich über das Thema zu referieren.

[@kfawell]

Watching this video sometimes is like an similie that doesn't add any new information. Still, l now can appreciate the cost of expensive lenses.

[@Overeem28]

You are my favourite photo channel on youtube! You will hit 1 mil subscribers i guarantee you this...mark my words But when you hit it i want you to buy me one sony lense of my choosing! Do we have a deal? Ps. Keep up the great work!

[@Photography-Explained]

What an awesome comment! Thank you for taking the time to connect and the kind words. How about this, if we get to 1 mill subs AND you email me this comment, I'll buy you a new lens :).

[@legenderry25]

Still no justification for the thousands they cost. what you just explained sounds like childs play compared to manufacturing semiconductors with die size of around 70mm2 and putting 8-10 billion transistors on it for 500-$600. 10k for a piece of glass wrapped in aluminum and plastic is absurd...

[@nialinga1301]

Ein modernes 70/200 objektiv zb kann nicht mehr mit einem von vor 35 jahrenverglichen werden. Weder vom preis, noch von der abbildungsleistung.

[@MrQwertypoiuyty]

Simple. The brand. An example: Leica sells their M-mount lenses with a huge mark up, while Voigtlander sells equivalent lenses at a fraction of Leica's prices. Trust me, a few of Voigtlander's fast lenses are sometimes even better than Leica's 😊 It's just that those people who really can afford Leica M series cameras will not pay attention to cheaper alternative lenses. Because they ask themselves "What's the point? I have a 10 million dollar savings in my bank account and why should I cheap out with those silly Voigt lenses?" 😂

[@johnadams3038]

It's like this guy just discovered modern lenses lol

[@Photography-Explained]

I did... I've been doing photography for 18 months.

[@brushbros]

A good sharpening program is better than the best lens.

[@DINShandle]

Again talking about me...

[@Photography-Explained]

I've been watching you...

[@GeorgeHPeters]

Kann man das bitte etwas schneller sagen?

[@Photography-Explained]

Ich könnte es versuchen

[@disco.jellyfish]

Actually, modern camera lenses have become very cheap compared to what you used to pay. At least when it comes for video makers. Just 10 years ago, when broadcast cameras were where its at, the cheapest of the cheap boroadcast lenses used to cost $25k for the standard zooms. Telezooms were even more expensive. Nowadays people shoot the same kind of content on the Sony 24-105 f4.0 GOSS GM that costs like $900 or even less. Of course it doesnt have a lot of the features older broadcast lenses used to have like, hard stopped manual focus, being parfocal, big focal ranges, integrated extenders and no optical distortions. But customers dont pay as well anymore as they used to pay. But even much better "do it all lenses" like the Canon RF 24-105 f2.8 IS USM Z are just $3.5k nowadays and its a lens that does a lot of things for its money imo. But 3.5k is an expensive hobby, but this lens is most likely aimed at professional videomakers because it doesnt perfectly cover the whole 3:2 full frame area at its 24mm setting, only from 28mm onwards (it does cover 16:9 perfectly, though) and it has a declicked aperture ring that cannot click and its electrically parfocal. So its pretty much a video lens that can also do photos as a side hustle. For professional uses 3.5k is earned back rather quickly.

[@tw06le1]

Shots Fired! lol

[@Soniti1324]

You gotta stop using GPT to write these scripts. It shows.

[@snowmanninja2]

I was thinking the same thing. Can't listen to this. So much unfunny uninformative filler

[@Photography-Explained]

Sorry that you guys didn't enjoy this one.

[@kingghidorah8106]

the reason sony and canon lenses cost so much more than others is for the same reason why sony and canon bodies cost more than the others: Marketing. Sony and Canon have an "ambassador program" and a lot of publicity and partnerships behind. They gotta pay these content creators somehow. This is why Nikon cameras and lenses are overall less expensive, because they're not popular among the media since nikon does not have partnerships or ambassadors.

[@robdixon5016]

I have 25 Nikon lenses, none of them were cheap.

[@kingghidorah8106]

@robdixon5016 Nikon lenses are perfect. Sony kenses have always been severely flawed for decades until now. Yes, Nikon lenses are expensive but you have to take into account that Sony lenses were even more expensive. Nikon 's 70-200 VR II costed €2500 and was one of the best lenses before 2015. Sony's 70-200 SSM II had a price of 3700. 11 years after and the price hasn't gone down, as usual with Sony products.

[@robdixon5016]

@@kingghidorah8106 Dont get me wrong I am very happy with them or I would not have bought so many. But as I said they are not cheap. You do get what you pay for though.

[@kingghidorah8106]

@@robdixon5016 they're the cheapest, what are you talking about?! You can't really compare the €2600 70-200 GM 1 which despite what people say it's incredibly soft and has bad autofocus speed, with €2000 Nikkor 70-200 S FL ED which up to this day still holds up against G Master lenses in sharpness and autofocus. When I say Nikon lenses are cheap I mean that they are a bargain because their performance vastly surpasses everything else by light years and yet they costs LESS than these overhyped brands.

[@robdixon5016]

@@kingghidorah8106 I said they werent cheap. I was not comparing prices. I paid $2700 for my 70-200. Thats alot of money to most people.

[@taher6969]

Holy is just half the comment section just so nitpicky, for your own sanity photography explained just dont read or reply anymore it really lowers your mood

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I skim most of the comments to see if there's anything we can improve upon in the videos but I don't take them personally :).

[@marcpoletti9511]

So my Vivitar lens must be excellent quality, it was quite costly, set me back almost $170 , thank you soo much, now I know what went into it, and why the high cost, TY.

[@marcpoletti9511]

Bro, your an idiot..

[@marcpoletti9511]

No I'm not...

[@marcpoletti9511]

Your an idiot troll..

[@marcpoletti9511]

No I'm NOT..... ok, maybe a little..

[@Photography-Explained]

Glad I could help!

[@Photography-Explained]

📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexplained.com/cheatsheets/

[@masumrana1085]

Please slow down a little. We're not watching a news. We've TV for that. I can't connect with you at all.

[@palashchoudhury5565]

Use Plastic Glass is 2 Heavy

[@iamakkkshay]

CR-47 is pretty decent, better than polycarbonate when it comes to chromatic abberation and clarity. But over time everything other than glass turns yellow and cloudy :(

[@palashchoudhury5565]

When it Turn Yellow Sell Another Simple

[@22phan]

Its called being profitable, and telling a $2k story to justify the price. Why not list the cost of goods sold and process like $100-400 worth of eyeglass and $100 assembly. 1500 profit. Its not like same lens machine makes eye glasses Or make eyes for $25, charge $250. No way this happens😂

[@Xinvoker]

10/10.

[@daniel53581]

sea como sea sigue siendo cara y nada lo justifica

[@wrongwhale6787]

10:04 bruh

[@sutfuf6756]

Well said. I just got my hands on a zorki made in 1966; it came with a beat up industar lens, but, it still takes ace shots. :-) Latest shmatest. ;-).

[@Photography-Explained]

That's awesome!

[@XaXaTempted]

Use nd filter to lower your shutter speed 😅 your video looks bad

[@_triNity87]

Which Brand have the Best glass? Nikon, Canon, Sony (GM), Sigma (Art), Tamron... etc

[@desmondmasikhwa1700]

Viltrox

[@_triNity87]

@desmondmasikhwa1700 in comparison with its price and value... it might be. These days Viltrox produce many good lenses😊

[@IvicaMarusevic]

Your swatter urgently needs lint remover ;)

[@andywolf100]

This is a video that shows how the glass is assembled into a zoom lens kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGard3-hg9eVf7c 😮

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the link. I'll stick it in the description.

[@Anders_vB]

Lots of talk with a minimum of (real) facts. 😔

[@Photography-Explained]

Sorry that you didn't enjoy this one Anders. Thanks for the feedback.

[@chengong388]

All you're doing is giving a elementary school description of the rough steps to making lenses, complete with bullshit statement like "assembled with surgical precision", bro if they were so badly assembled they would not be able to take photos more than VGA resolution, optical systems require way higher tolerances than what surgeons could do by hand. which does not at all explain what makes expensive lenses expensive.

[@tdawg719]

Bro just took the recently release sigma video and yapped over it

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the feedback. I tried to go deeper than that by explaining the reasons for the coatings etc but I guess that didn't come across in the end video.

[@tdawg719]

@ I mean your production value is there and you’re doing a lot right. Keep at it.

[@photonthief]

I'd probably have started with an explanation of the camera companies ownership structures and their requirements to maximise shareholder value. Also, putting other youtubers faces in the video whilst ragging on them is a dick move. There are some good creators there who put a lot of effort into their videos. Its a bad look dude. Be better

[@davepapineau]

Lol good video till he goes "I'm an amateur and the pro level glass isn't worth it". I get your points but lol. Pros buy pro gear for a reason. Sure, composition and skill before gear, but the fast glass does make a difference. F 1.2 vs f2.8 vs f4 is a lot and can dramatically change your outcomes. If it's your day in and day out job, it's absolutely worth it for the best results. But ya it's expensive, ya it's marketing - but it also does matter.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yep.