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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :).
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.
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.
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 :).
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.
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
“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.
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.
@markedwards4879 predictive autofocus of today? Can use ai to determine what kind of a ball sport is being played and focus on the player the ball is going to next before it even gets there. With sports, there isn't enough time to manual focus every time. It's even hard for auto focus to get the right subject. AI autofocus, can even follow the ball. When another player runs in front of the one with the ball. Autofocus technology has come a long way😊
@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
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.
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!
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.
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 😂
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
It's amazing how technologically advanced cameras and lenses are, while focus shift is still a major problem on fast prime lenses. Especially since they are known for their sharpness with the diaphragm slightly closed down. Autofocus should be done with the diaphragm closed down to the set value (max f/5.6, or slightly lower in low light conditions), rather than wide open which causes the focus distance to shift due to spherical abberation.
What amazes me is that I could buy a complete a Zeiss Milvus lens system from 21mm to 135mm (21mm f/2.8*, 25mm f/1.4*, 35mm f/2**. 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 Makro-Planar, 135mm f/2 all ZF.2 (more expensive due to the aperture ring, but more practical for mounting on mirrorless camera)) for less than £5.5k second hand. Whilst not cheap, particularly for a set of manual focus lenses. The quality of the lenses is on another level compared to most lens manufacturers in terms of build and in some cases optical ability. Also, to buy new, you are looking at spending around £11,300 (A second hand Leica equivalent'ish would be £13k+). * The reason to go for the 21mm f/2.8 and 25mm f/1.4 is weight and use. The 21mm f/2.8 is much lighter and more portable, for landscapes, whilst I love 25mm for portraits. ** The Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 is optically better, but it also is huge, and weighs in at 1131g compared to the 649g for the Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/2, which is better for street photography.
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.📸
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 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.
@@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.
@@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
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.
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.
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 I am a malaysian who haven't been to US yet and just watch a lot RUclips 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! :-)
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?
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.
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.
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!
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 :).
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.
a little note : surely the price of camera lens is expensive and sometime unaproachable. But if I compare it with the price of a normal pair of lens of eyeglass it seems really cheaper.. . Isn't so ?🤓
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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 ??
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 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.
@@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.
@@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.
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...
semiconductors have a much bigger economy of scale. optics are made in smaller batches and have stricter quality control. there is no "silicone lottery" for glass. these are 2 completely different industries.
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?" 😂
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
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 :).
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.
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😂
9:50 but I like these “nerd RUclipsrs” and they’ve proven themselves over the years. Respectfully, you are the new guy that needs to establish credibility. Other than that, good video. 😊
💰Want to win $10,000? Enter the Photography Explained Awards here: 👉 PhotographyExplained.com/Awards
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.
using lead in glass is prohibited....sounds very stupid, if it is true
@@nassersi i think most consumer products generally aren't supposed to contain lead 😬 unless that's the main part of the product
@@nindoninshu I don't think there's a dumbass who'll eat optical lenses....if there is, one less fool.
@@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
Stock up on vintage lenses!! I got lucky and found 3 lenses that take awesome pictures for less than a hundred each.
For info, a typical human hair is 90,000 nanometres thick.
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.
Does that mean heat must be applied to it for the years.
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.
you also missed some stuff too as well.........
i want lens! nOW
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.
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 :).
I find it a little disappointed by the negative comments here,this dude has given his supposedly best,why all these negativity!!!!????
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.
Finally somebody talking about the skill not the gear. Thank You sir!
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.
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 :).
@@Photography-Explained dna is a few nanometers wide. i would think thats more impressive statement than thinner than human hair analogy
It is for someone who has the context of what a nanometer is.
@@Photography-Explainedthe point we’re trying to make is that you’re the one providing this context to your audience.
I'm tired of distance always being compared to a football field.😊
I still use manual lenses from the 80's.
Some of my best photos are done with them.
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.
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.
Physics taught me why lenses can be expensive.
Shots fired at "nerdy youtubers"
You could have posted links to the actual manufacturing process filmed in the plant. Canon has published a few of them.
It looks like Sigma factory footage.
dang, this comments section is rough...
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
Haha, sorry that might just be how I'm wired. Un-ironically I own Salesman.com.
Really?? What a boring comment. I rather enjoyed the video and how he presented it.
@ really?
Lol! @ph5740, Really?
Bruh
“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.
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.
@markedwards4879 predictive autofocus of today? Can use ai to determine what kind of a ball sport is being played and focus on the player the ball is going to next before it even gets there. With sports, there isn't enough time to manual focus every time. It's even hard for auto focus to get the right subject. AI autofocus, can even follow the ball. When another player runs in front of the one with the ball. Autofocus technology has come a long way😊
"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
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.
@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
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.
Meanwhile people spend thousands on manual-focus Leicas 😄
also the presenter looks old enough to have used manual focus lenses
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!
Those astronomical cost actually make even less sense. Because $1000 is all i can see on them still.
You forgot to mention most important points:- Marketing costs and profit margins
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.
are u using a Ai to write ur scripts
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 😂
That is a great camera i hope you still have it
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.
Thank you for the nice feedback. Really makes a difference when the team and myself see comments like yours :).
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!
My guy... Not everything you say needs to have an analogy
A metaphor?
It’s because the script is heavily chat GPT’d 🤮
@@SebboThePotatolol
@@Photography-Explained I appreciate when you do, it helps the viewer understand the concept more
Just remember, Galileo polished his lenses by hand to be used on his telescope to observe Saturn
im still in awe how human can mass produce lenses
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!
Thanks Leo! Comments like this keep me and the team going mate :).
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.
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.
It's amazing how technologically advanced cameras and lenses are, while focus shift is still a major problem on fast prime lenses. Especially since they are known for their sharpness with the diaphragm slightly closed down. Autofocus should be done with the diaphragm closed down to the set value (max f/5.6, or slightly lower in low light conditions), rather than wide open which causes the focus distance to shift due to spherical abberation.
I was actually expecting a tour of a lens manufacturing facility. Not a story with a power point presentation.
I bought a canon rebel t6 7 years ago, it came with 2 lenses and still works like new
Nanometre precision with every element in a massive lens assembly.. Such a lens is a wonder of the World as much as the photos of them.
What amazes me is that I could buy a complete a Zeiss Milvus lens system from 21mm to 135mm (21mm f/2.8*, 25mm f/1.4*, 35mm f/2**. 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 Makro-Planar, 135mm f/2 all ZF.2 (more expensive due to the aperture ring, but more practical for mounting on mirrorless camera)) for less than £5.5k second hand.
Whilst not cheap, particularly for a set of manual focus lenses. The quality of the lenses is on another level compared to most lens manufacturers in terms of build and in some cases optical ability. Also, to buy new, you are looking at spending around £11,300 (A second hand Leica equivalent'ish would be £13k+).
* The reason to go for the 21mm f/2.8 and 25mm f/1.4 is weight and use. The 21mm f/2.8 is much lighter and more portable, for landscapes, whilst I love 25mm for portraits.
** The Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/1.4 is optically better, but it also is huge, and weighs in at 1131g compared to the 649g for the Zeiss Milvus 35mm f/2, which is better for street photography.
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.
Does the quality of a photograph increase linearly when compared to changes in technology and price?
All that work so RUclips/Netflix can compress it/show it to me at a bitrate that looks like 720p :))
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.📸
Thank you for the nice comment. I should have included a section on the retail markups as well.
@@Photography-Explained I feel the more you learn about photography steeper the learning curve.🤔
Super Video! 😁✌️ was aber noch erwähnenswert ist, das bei langer Verschlusszeit gefahr auf Verwacklung besteht, ansonten top!
long story short: people are "willing" to pay these prices, sooooo why sell/market them cheaper?!
"greed is eternal"
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.
Not true. But if you really want to believe that.....good on ya....
@@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.
@@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.
@@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
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.
You're right, I should have included a section on the retail mark up etc. Thanks for the feedback mate.
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.
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!
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.
@Photography-Explained I am a malaysian who haven't been to US yet and just watch a lot RUclips 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! :-)
Imagine for some reason we reset back to stone age. Just how difficult it is to engineer something like this again
The really expensive lenses are specialist tools with few sales and that is the main reason for their cost.
You can’t convince me your logo isn’t copying NBC
OK, I won't try then.
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?
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.
And then there’s the “I had to order and return 16 times until I got a workable ‘copy’” photographer.
It's spelt "nerd", not "photographer" 🙂
Thankyou for this sharing, i used to always wonder about this.
You're very welcome. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I have an expensive lens, but it's a zoom lens so it lets dust in, but seems to be an common issue.
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 😉
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.
2:13 thats a serious understatement. You meant thinner than 1/90000th of a human hair
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!
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 :).
WOW! impressive and informative video... instant subscribed!!
Thanks. Very informative.
You're welcome!
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.
a little note : surely the price of camera lens is expensive and sometime unaproachable. But if I compare it with the price of a normal pair of lens of eyeglass it seems really cheaper.. . Isn't so ?🤓
Should've mentioned the details of each stage..
Evet bakalım. (Fiberoptik, malzeme, incelik, yoğunluk, direnç, izolasyon vb. )
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.
Sometimes there's even a shutter inside a lens :)
Ahhhh nice one. Covering leaf shutters could be an interesting video. Thanks for the comment!
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.
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.
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
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?
I'm no expert :).
But if I could notice the decentering when taking photos I'd be returning it for a refund.
And then we have smartphones with puny lenses and tiny sensors, and the software does the heavy work 😁
Smartphones have cool lenses and Apple has some unique coatings. It's only a matter of time until they have a break through.
@@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
Software cannot fix unsharp images.
@@okaro6595 Are you shure????? TOPAZ !
@@hanswi336No. It adds noise
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.
Is this video in 24fps? Or the reduced the EV?
Good explanation
Thanks for the kind words Gavin!
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
Lens don't matter my dear
Just put the photo to ai it will make it perfect
"Instaworthy" is not a good word...
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.
Great video! Great editing! And I love the dad jokes! Earned a sub for sure!
Thanks for the sub!
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.
Very informative.
Thanks mate :).
Great video. Thank you.
You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
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!
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.
Bro, your an idiot..
No I'm not...
Your an idiot troll..
No I'm NOT..... ok, maybe a little..
Glad I could help!
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 ??
Ein modernes 70/200 objektiv zb kann nicht mehr mit einem von vor 35 jahrenverglichen werden.
Weder vom preis, noch von der abbildungsleistung.
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.
I have 25 Nikon lenses, none of them were cheap.
@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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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...
semiconductors have a much bigger economy of scale. optics are made in smaller batches and have stricter quality control. there is no "silicone lottery" for glass. these are 2 completely different industries.
Camera lens are way too expensive due to process to create it and glasses that are thrown due to imperfections
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?" 😂
It's like this guy just discovered modern lenses lol
I did... I've been doing photography for 18 months.
Again talking about me...
I've been watching you...
Shots Fired! lol
A good sharpening program is better than the best lens.
no it's not. you can't recover details that aren't there through software
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
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 :).
Very interesting 👌
Mi notebook es más compleja y sale más barata, pues la competencia entre compañías han dejado atrás a los puristas... 😂
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.
You gotta stop using GPT to write these scripts.
It shows.
I was thinking the same thing. Can't listen to this. So much unfunny uninformative filler
Sorry that you guys didn't enjoy this one.
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😂
9:50 but I like these “nerd RUclipsrs” and they’ve proven themselves over the years. Respectfully, you are the new guy that needs to establish credibility. Other than that, good video. 😊
Thanks for the feedback. I'm a photographer, not a gear reviewer though.
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. ;-).
That's awesome!
📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexplained.com/cheatsheets/
Please slow down a little. We're not watching a news. We've TV for that. I can't connect with you at all.
Thank you for the video interesting, I wonder if they take it so serious on smartphones like Samsung flagship the cameras.😉