why is there such a big jump in price in all telephotos above 300mm?

I'm honestly interested in understanding this.

A AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR is about 12000$. The AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR costs roughly 10000$. The fast AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR is about 12000$

You can get a AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED for 1100$, a AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR is about 2000$, and a AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II for 5500$ which is a lot but it's still half of the 400mm...

I'm not accusing Nikon or any maker, I'm sure there are technological and also market (less demand? niche products?) constraints and I would like to understand them.

I'm kind of bummed because it seems recent longer lenses are really for pros (or very rich people) and you should make a living out of them, and I would love to photograph some wildlife and surf for example.

I've been paying close attention to the 2nd hand market but it's still very expensive. Any advice would be welcome.

As soon as I posted i read this: https://www.dpreview.com/news/47387...ility-announced-for-compact-nikon-500mm-f5-6e

It seems it will cost about 3600$. Still very expensive, but in the same league of 300mm model pricing. So it was a question of design of existent lenses, you can have a 10 000$ 500mm lens and a 3600$ 500mm lens. Is it the aperture? Is f5 too low for wildlife, sports etc.?

Most of us who want to have a long lens go for the 200-500 f/5.6.

lb77 said:

As soon as I posted i read this: https://www.dpreview.com/news/47387...ility-announced-for-compact-nikon-500mm-f5-6e

It seems it will cost about 3600$. Still very expensive, but in the same league of 300mm model pricing. So it was a question of design of existent lenses, you can have a 10 000$ 500mm lens and a 3600$ 500mm lens. Is it the aperture? Is f5 too low for wildlife, sports etc.?

Click to expand...

The 500/5.6E PF is already extant, though in quite small quantities, thus far.

Yes, much wildlife and bird activity occurs in low light. One reason that I hesitate to settle for a 500/5.6E PF is because we often shoot so early and late in the day. We have a beautiful manual-focus Nineties-era Nikkor 500/4P, as well as slower-aperture auto-focusing zoom lenses, so understand the limitations of f/5.6 in low light. Even though having AF, a 500/5.6E PF could not fully “replace” our 500/4P.

For a relatively much-less-expensive 500mm f/4, the Sigma Sport line has an option that seems good enough for noted nature/wildlife shooter Brad Hill, who blogs at naturalart.ca . We have to decide whether to try one of these.

The 200-500 f/5.6E has opened doors for me that I otherwise couldn't have justified.

It may not have quite the quality of Nikon's other super teles, but especially at the recently discounted price of $1144, it's really a no-brainer and I'm seriously impressed with it.

lb77 said:

I'm honestly interested in understanding this.

I'm not accusing Nikon or any maker, I'm sure there are technological and also market (less demand? niche products?) constraints and I would like to understand them.

Click to expand...

As the engineers that used to work for me would say: it is a consequence of the "squared / cubed law". To wit:

The weight and cost of an optical system tends to be dominated -- all else equal and they rarely are -- by the mass of the largest objective lens elements, and those vary with the cube of their diameter. Their diameter (at least for telephotos; it is a whole other discussion of what drives wide-angle diameters) is more-or-less given by the f-ratio, so a 600mm f4 has a 150mm objective lens.

As i write these words, Amazon is quoting $2k for a 300mm f4 with the fancy-dancy PF lens elements (that cost extra to fabricate) and $12.3k for their 600mm f4. Knock off $500 for the fresnel PF factor and you get the 8 to 1 ratio implied by the cube rule. That is: a 300mm f4 has a 75mm objective lens element or half the diameter of a 600mm f4's 150mm element, thus one half-cubed, or one-eighth the cost and weight. Amazon quotes $11.3k for the Nikon 400mm f2.8 (with an implied 142.9mm objective lens). The cube rule estimates $10.6k according to my calculator.

Anyway the point is: these costs that you see are unavoidable corollaries of the production economics. I am surprised that they are as reasonable as they are, given the tiny production volumes, actually.

With today's technology to the real way to save money (and weight!) for long-range telephoto photography is to master and use a smaller sensor. The d500 is an amazing body! Plenty of people find m4/3 more than adequate.

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

You can find less expensive glass, but you have to enjoy manual focus. Case in point, 400/3.5 is one of those lenses....and it feels like it's 5 lbs heavier than my 200-500. Funny enough, I use the 200-500 in manual focus....pretty much NOT done on this forum. I have some nice BIF shots, also in MF. Anyhoo, and I'm not selling the 200-500, the 500 PF just doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom. Sometimes framing is crucial.

Sometimes being there at certain time is more important than X vs Y.

lb77 said:

I'm honestly interested in understanding this.

A AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR is about 12000$. The AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR costs roughly 10000$. The fast AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR is about 12000$

You can get a AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED for 1100$, a AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR is about 2000$, and a AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II for 5500$ which is a lot but it's still half of the 400mm...

I'm not accusing Nikon or any maker, I'm sure there are technological and also market (less demand? niche products?) constraints and I would like to understand them.

I'm kind of bummed because it seems recent longer lenses are really for pros (or very rich people) and you should make a living out of them, and I would love to photograph some wildlife and surf for example.

I've been paying close attention to the 2nd hand market but it's still very expensive. Any advice would be welcome.

Click to expand...

Some of these exotic lenses are worth the cost to many because of the images they produce. Also the build quality has to be substantial to support all the weight and glass, motors, circuit boards and features inside the lenses. And let's face it, Nikon (and Canon and others) know they can get the higher price for those lenses.

Right now you could probably score a used 500mm f4 G for around $3600. I know because I just sold one recently for that price. I felt it was worth at least $1000 more, but no takers. Some of this is because the 500mm PF is so good, it has taken the wind out of some of the resale value of the 500mm and 600mm lenses.

There are significant engineering differences in designing and manufacturing a 300mm f4 and a 600mm f4. Just seeing them side by side is sure to make you say wow.

There are cheaper alternatives such as the Sigma zooms too. Some of these come real close to the performance of the big f4s or 2.8s. But they have their limitations on bokeh or background rendering, subject isolation and the ability to extend the focal length as well as AF speed.

Good luck, Dave

gear1box said:

lb77 said:

I'm honestly interested in understanding this.

I'm not accusing Nikon or any maker, I'm sure there are technological and also market (less demand? niche products?) constraints and I would like to understand them.

Click to expand...

As the engineers that used to work for me would say: it is a consequence of the "squared / cubed law". To wit:

The weight and cost of an optical system tends to be dominated -- all else equal and they rarely are -- by the mass of the largest objective lens elements, and those vary with the cube of their diameter. Their diameter (at least for telephotos; it is a whole other discussion of what drives wide-angle diameters) is more-or-less given by the f-ratio, so a 600mm f4 has a 150mm objective lens.

As i write these words, Amazon is quoting $2k for a 300mm f4 with the fancy-dancy PF lens elements (that cost extra to fabricate) and $12.3k for their 600mm f4. Knock off $500 for the fresnel PF factor and you get the 8 to 1 ratio implied by the cube rule. That is: a 300mm f4 has a 75mm objective lens element or half the diameter of a 600mm f4's 150mm element, thus one half-cubed, or one-eighth the cost and weight. Amazon quotes $11.3k for the Nikon 400mm f2.8 (with an implied 142.9mm objective lens). The cube rule estimates $10.6k according to my calculator.
Anyway the point is: these costs that you see are unavoidable corollaries of the production economics. I am surprised that they are as reasonable as they are, given the tiny production volumes, actually.
With today's technology to the real way to save money (and weight!) for long-range telephoto photography is to master and use a smaller sensor. The d500 is an amazing body! Plenty of people find m4/3 more than adequate.

Click to expand...

OK, but the 200-500 has a 95mm front element, is listed for $1400 on Amazon and should be listed for almost $7000 by your cube rule (if my math is correct, which is doubtful).

Actually . . . no . . .

For the computation that you cite (92/150)^3 is about 0.21 or $2800, compared to $12k for the 600mm f4.

But the real point is the "all else equal" . . . which a consumer grade (or at least less than pro-grade) zoom is not compared to the "super teles" that are the subject of my post. The latter, while lacking a zoom mechanism have exquisite attention paid in both design and manufacturing for resolution and durability. The volume of production is also vastly different; easily two orders of magnitude. A two to one difference in price is not at all surprising; we see, for example, precisely that ratio in the mid-zoom field.

The cube rule is not meant to be a precision estimation tool, but rather an answer to the original post: in rough terms, why are "they" so darned expensive?

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

(1) Very low production numbers relative to the more popular 300mm-ish options equates to higher cost per unit, and (2) high quality control -- there's virtually no "sample variation" when it comes to superteles.

It's down to one of the unwritten rules of business.

The fast superteles are massive and not the sort of thing your average consumer wants. They are tools of a trade, and therefore tend to get put down as expenses. Anything put down as expenses and a professional item, or paid by insurance, tends to balloon in cost. Hospitals can pay/charge stupid amounts for a simple aluminium crutch for instance.

The cost of polishing heavy glass is expensive and time consuming. Nikon establishes cost of the lens by their weight. There is a big difference in weight between a f2.8 and f4 lens. I estimate $1,200/lb, or 23,158 euros/kg. Plus, you are paying dearly for that golden ring around the tip of the lens. Maybe not?

thank you all for your answers, they were very elucidative.

Hi,

The larger the element, the more difficult it is to manufacture. Units which do not pass Final Test have to be scrapped. The ratio of good to bad is known as Yield.

The cost of the failed ones are added to the cost of the good ones. And, this is another factor to consider.

Stan

Geomaticsman said:

(1) Very low production numbers relative to the more popular 300mm-ish options equates to higher cost per unit, and (2) high quality control -- there's virtually no "sample variation" when it comes to superteles.

Click to expand...

Quite true. Economy of scale does not exist with the “exotic” lenses, and the level of QC is amazingly high. The folks who build these lenses, and ensure QC/QA, are not low-seniority, low-wage employees.

I will repeat “amazing,” because these lenses are truly amazing. My only Nikkor, built to this level, is a 200/2 VR, which I bought pre-owned, well after the VR II was extant, for about $3K, in late 2016. I recently noticed that asking prices have actually risen, since then.

lb77 said:

... I'm kind of bummed because it seems recent longer lenses are really for pros (or very rich people) and you should make a living out of them

Click to expand...

Don't be bummed. You got it spot on!

lb77 said:

, and I would love to photograph some wildlife and surf for example.

Click to expand...

As some posted above, the Nikkor 200-500 is the answer from Nikon to your prayers.

Cheapskate! :-D

Leswick II said:

You can find less expensive glass, but you have to enjoy manual focus. Case in point, 400/3.5 is one of those lenses....and it feels like it's 5 lbs heavier than my 200-500. Funny enough, I use the 200-500 in manual focus....pretty much NOT done on this forum. I have some nice BIF shots, also in MF. Anyhoo, and I'm not selling the 200-500, the 500 PF just doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom. Sometimes framing is crucial.

Sometimes being there at certain time is more important than X vs Y.

Click to expand...

I love love love my 600mmF5.6 AIS. I also try to practice manually focusing my 200-500mm because these birds like to mess about behind branches!

vsk

gear1box said:

Actually . . . no . . .

For the computation that you cite (92/150)^3 is about 0.21 or $2800, compared to $12k for the 600mm f4.

But the real point is the "all else equal" . . . which a consumer grade (or at least less than pro-grade) zoom is not compared to the "super teles" that are the subject of my post. The latter, while lacking a zoom mechanism have exquisite attention paid in both design and manufacturing for resolution and durability. The volume of production is also vastly different; easily two orders of magnitude. A two to one difference in price is not at all surprising; we see, for example, precisely that ratio in the mid-zoom field.

The cube rule is not meant to be a precision estimation tool, but rather an answer to the original post: in rough terms, why are "they" so darned expensive?

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.

Click to expand...

Add in the cost of exotic optical elements (fluorite, ED, etc.) and the human labor cost of hand figuring & polishing (exotic lenses) versus an optic that is 100% (or nearly so) machine figured, along with build quality & materials, and my guess is that would fill in any blanks of the "squared/cubed" law.

lb77 said:

. . .AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II for 5500$ which is a lot but it's still half of the 400mm...

Click to expand...

One reason why the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 is so much less than the 400mm f/2.8 is that it has not been updated to the newest technologies. For example, the 300mm is almost as heavy as Nikon's newest 500mm f/4F with the newest technologies and more than a pound heavier than the Canon 300mm f/2.8. If (and when) Nikon updates the 300mm f/2.8 for the DSLR, I am sure the price will be substantially higher than $5,500.