I was thinking about this the other day and I thought I would go ahead and write it down just in case I feel like referencing it one day. For the purposes of pricing, I'm using figures below retail... maybe there is a sale... maybe a rebate... but I could never image paying full price on anything. Also, I'm not considering the price of the bodies... since there are some cheap crop and full frame options... I'll leave the ratios respective of the lens and the sensor type.
My first set of lenses were the kit, 18-55, and the much maligned (and deservedly so) 75-300mm. On my XS, a crop body, that gave me an effective reach for 480mm give or take. @ the bargain basement price of $100, I got a whole 4.8mm per dollar... oh... and all the blurry photos I wanted. It was a buffet of blur...
Then I elected to give up some reach in favor of the Canon 55-250mm IS. The images were better... variable aperture doesn't really come into play with this discussion, but all in all it was a solid lens. Again, on a crop body, my reach was 400mm give or take. @ the time, the lens cost around $170, so the mm/$ ratio is 2.35mm/$. MM's are starting to get expensive in this game of reach.
Eventually I upgraded my body to another crop body... so it is a push. But then I kept pushing the image quality barrier... and low and behold, a 70-200mm f/4L USM shows up @ my door. Now I'm at 320mm and a ratio of .533mm/$. Outrageous. I then played the game of climb the ladder with the 70-200's and while my reach wasn't changed, my ratio went from .533 to .246 to finally .145mm/$.
Then I upgrade from crop to full frame bring my reach to a paltry 200mm and a ratio of .0909mm/$.
Here's where things started to go the other direction... Losing all that reach either compels you to buy a new lens, maybe a fast prime... or in my case I bought a teleconvertor, 1.4x. Now I'm rocking 280mm and a ratio of .107mm/$. The reach is increasing an amazingly so is the ratio. I personally don't have a 2x teleconvertor... but if I did, then we are at 400mm and .154mm/$.
So what's the moral... I think it is simple. Reach is cheap in the beginning... but when you come out the other end you'll have to pay dearly for it.
My first set of lenses were the kit, 18-55, and the much maligned (and deservedly so) 75-300mm. On my XS, a crop body, that gave me an effective reach for 480mm give or take. @ the bargain basement price of $100, I got a whole 4.8mm per dollar... oh... and all the blurry photos I wanted. It was a buffet of blur...
Then I elected to give up some reach in favor of the Canon 55-250mm IS. The images were better... variable aperture doesn't really come into play with this discussion, but all in all it was a solid lens. Again, on a crop body, my reach was 400mm give or take. @ the time, the lens cost around $170, so the mm/$ ratio is 2.35mm/$. MM's are starting to get expensive in this game of reach.
Eventually I upgraded my body to another crop body... so it is a push. But then I kept pushing the image quality barrier... and low and behold, a 70-200mm f/4L USM shows up @ my door. Now I'm at 320mm and a ratio of .533mm/$. Outrageous. I then played the game of climb the ladder with the 70-200's and while my reach wasn't changed, my ratio went from .533 to .246 to finally .145mm/$.
Then I upgrade from crop to full frame bring my reach to a paltry 200mm and a ratio of .0909mm/$.
Here's where things started to go the other direction... Losing all that reach either compels you to buy a new lens, maybe a fast prime... or in my case I bought a teleconvertor, 1.4x. Now I'm rocking 280mm and a ratio of .107mm/$. The reach is increasing an amazingly so is the ratio. I personally don't have a 2x teleconvertor... but if I did, then we are at 400mm and .154mm/$.
So what's the moral... I think it is simple. Reach is cheap in the beginning... but when you come out the other end you'll have to pay dearly for it.
