Canon Lenses.....Price versus Weight

[Belmondo]

With all the discussion seemingly revolving around the pending release of the 20D, I thought I'd try to provoke some thought on an unrelated subject.

Statememnt of facts:
1. Recently I bought an EF 14 f/2.8L, and was immediately struck that it sure doesn't weigh much for such an expensive lens.

2. Someone asked in another thread why people get so excited at the release of a new wide angle lens. I answered that they were the most expensive lenses for their weight, and were therefore the easiest way to dispose of large sums of money while having minimal impact on the weight of the equipment one must carry.

Those two thoughts prompted me to sit down and figure out just how expensive these lenses are on a price per pound basis, or in this case, price per gram.

Here are the results:

EF 50mm f/1.8 II, 130 grams, 74.95*, $0.577/gram

EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, 1470 grams, 1649.95*, $1.122/gram

EF 600mm f/4L IS USM, 5360 grams, 7199.95*, $1.343/gram

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, 1670 grams, 2499*, $1.496/gram

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS, 720 grams, 1299*, $1.804/gram

EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 580 grams, 1119.95*, $1.931/gram

EF 24mm f/1.4L USM, 550 grams, 1119.95*, $2.036/gram

EF 14mm f/2.8L USM, 560 grams, 1799.95*, $3.214/gram

(*B&H price on U.S. lenses as of 8/19/04)

You are likely asking, "What does all this prove?"

How about this: The 600mm f/4 is a bargain at only $1.343 per gram. (It's cheaper than drugs.)



Am I bored today? Yup.

[CoolToolGuy]

Now this may be the pot calling the kettle black, but I think you have a little too much time on your hands... :lol:

Have Fun,

[CoolToolGuy]

Several years ago (more than several, but let's not go there) I was stopped at a traffic light in front of a low-end used car lot. While waiting, I looked over at the front row, and there was a rather beat-up car with writing on the windshield - '10 cents a pound, no money down, cheaper than sausage!' The phrase has always stuck with me. Somehow I don't think we could get B&H to sell 'L' glass in the same manner as the salad bar at the local grocery store. :roll:

Have Fun,

[cmM]

Belmondo has symptoms of photography-forum-moderator-itis

Unfortunately, there's no cure. I'm gonna go buy a pound of lens now :wink:

[drisley]

:D :lol:

[defordphoto]

Belmondo has symptoms of photography-forum-moderator-itis

Unfortunately, there's no cure. I'm gonna go buy a pound of lens now :wink:

:)

I'll take two pounds to go please.

[BearSummer]

2 pounds of what flavour RFM?

You could have the 135 F2 for 1.7lbs with enough to spare for a filter

Best

BearSummer

[PacAce]

Can I buy a 1DmkII by the pound? 'Cuz I'd like just half a pound's worth, please. :? I'm trying to get on a diet! :mrgreen:

[Belmondo]

You mock me. :evil: :wink:

Next I am going to do a chart of the comparative cost of each lens based on cost per millimeter multiplied by the reciprocal of the largest aperture setting.

My ultimate goal is to determine the most meaningless number in photography, even if I'm the one that generates it.

I want to make a contribution to my hobby as profound as did the individual who decided 'furlongs per fortnight' was the best way to measure velocity.

[BearSummer]

Hmmm, most meaningless. Ok how about a comparison of the ratios created by the following process

Measure the decibels produced from dropping a lens from 2 meters onto a concrete floor divided by the price of the lens as a ratio to the amount of pain inflicted on the owner as he watches this happen

Db/RRP : Anguish

Seems pretty pointless to me.

Best Regards

BearSummer

[CyberDyneSystems]

Belmondo,.

Your chart reminds of what we sound engineers have said for years about Amplifiers...

Seems in the early Eighties a gent name Bob Carver came up with a system for sound amplification that revolutionized amplifier contruction by doing away with most of the heat producing and very heavy internal power reserve that conventional designs used.

From that point on Amplifiers (solid state mind you.. tubes are excluded) came in roughly three flavors..

the old style,. (very heavy)
the new style (very light)
...and some mix in between.

Well,. most pro Audio guys felt that Carver's designs, though intriguing, did not offer the same sound quality as the tried and true heavy weights.


To this day,.. most of us insist. "Buy your amplifiers by the pound!"

[robertwgross]

Despite some of the jest, I actually have to pay close attention to the weight of lenses.

I try to do a lot of nature photography, and it is not uncommon for me to be out for ten miles or more on a hilly trail, stalking the rare wildflower or strange animal. I can't carry my entire lens collection and expect to last. So, I have to carry just one or two lenses that will give me the most bang for the buck... errr, bang for the ounce.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was up between 13,000 and 14,000 feet elevation shooting some small mammals, and I had to cover more than 20 miles that day. In fact, I carried my film body instead of my digital body, since one is much lighter than the other. I pay attention to weight details.

The good news, of course, is that the little critters posed for me!

---Bob Gross---

[Belmondo]

A new number: Critters per kilogram! I'm not sure how we'd actually go about determining this, but it could be useful.

[robertwgross]

A new number: Critters per kilogram! I'm not sure how we'd actually go about determining this, but it could be useful.

What is the conversion factor for Critters per Kilogram to Furlongs per Fortnight? That would be in ISO 100 meters, I believe.

---Bob Gross---

[samdring]

A new number: Critters per kilogram! I'm not sure how we'd actually go about determining this, but it could be useful.

Does a doe on heat care about bangs per buck?

[Belmondo]

For a doe in that condition, that's the only number that matters. :lol:

[John_T]

Good work Tom!

Just do one on price/weight/volume and you'll have what I want. The lower the weight/volume the better. Well, better throw in some formula for performance, and then I know what I'm paying for.

Just trying to put together a new travel kit based on the 20D.

20D
EF-S 17-85mm f4.5/5.6 IS USM
EF 70-300mm f4.5/56 DO IS USM

How do you rate the weight/volume/performance/price on that?

(Otta keep him busy a while :twisted: )

[Belmondo]

That's way beyond my capabilities, John_T. I'd be okay right up to the point where I'd have to divide by the coeffecient of the unknown. Then, I'm toast.

I'm good at imaginary number, and passable at abstract number, but imaginary abstract number throw me every time.

Just buy the stuff. It'll be just fine. :wink:

[John_T]

Ok! :mrgreen:

[Roy NN7DX]

with a grip and without a grip?

And... Surely some math wizard can explain how the added weight of these grips seemingly lowers the combined weight of the lens/camera combo. I use "flash factor" (as in the camera looks flashier) to explain this antigravity stuff . Perhaps someone else is better with negative numbers...