I feel a little princess disease, a little blx. As long as there is something that doesn't agree with me, I will make faces for others. What should I do?

Lenses are essentially glass products, why can some get tens of thousands of prices? The scope of discussion here is limited to the shots in the early Yuan Dynasty. I think this pricing lens is more in line with the scope worth discussing. Rumor 1: Glass is very cheap. The glass in our window is very cheap. In fact, they are all very primary silica crystals, which contain many elements that will affect the optical quality. The simplest thing is that we observe from the side of the glass and find that the glass is green because it contains iron. In fact, there are many elements, but these things do not affect the application of glass as a window at all and can be ignored. But when it comes to precision optical instruments, many of these components must be removed or controlled, thus increasing the cost. Some things need to be deleted and some things must be added. Glass used as lens usually needs higher refractive index to improve its optical properties. Lead was added to glass in the early days to achieve this goal, but it was later banned because of the need of environmental protection. On the contrary, some more expensive elements are used to achieve this goal, further increasing the cost. The cost of grinding glass is very high, not because of manual grinding, but because of the high hardness of glass itself. We need to find some special alloys that are much harder than it to grind, and these alloys are also consumables and the cost is very high. Of course, some very cheap lenses are made of plexiglass, which can be ground at will. Coating, modern optical instruments all use multilayer coating, the equipment is equally expensive, and the technology is patented. Special glasses, such as aspherical mirrors, are expensive to grind, ultra-low dispersion lenses are expensive in composition, and fluorite is actually calcium fluoride. It was used naturally in the early days, but now it is all artificial, which is a patent of Canon (but this thing is not used in & rduo; Have a huge sales volume &; Lduo is on the camera). To sum up, lens glass is actually very expensive. Myth # 2: The cost of manually assembling lenses is high. Except for Schneider, Leica and original Zeiss, almost no shots with obvious faces are completely assembled by hand. Some modules are assembled by machines first, and then people will assemble each module. There is no legendary mystery on the lens device, and everything is painted exactly the same. Japanese manufacturers have assembled some cheap lenses abroad, so the assembly cost will not be much higher than that of ordinary electronic equipment. Therefore, the embedded labor is actually not expensive. At Sig's factory in Aichi, Japan, workers are making the final assembly. 3. Although lens design requires a lot of manpower and material resources, the output can be diluted. Except for the well-known story that Galileo folded a concave lens and a convex lens to form a telescope, the lens design has always been calculated first. How the glass with curvature is refracted, how it is folded, how far it is, and what image it produces are all completely calculated. It used to be manual calculation, but now it is computer calculation, but it still involves a lot of manpower and material resources. The structure of modern lenses is far more complicated than before, and it costs millions of dollars to design one, so it is not as easy and cheap as we thought. So after a lens structure is designed, you can apply for patent protection. The output of lenses is not as large as we expected. After all, it's not the IPHONE. 13 On May 23rd, Canon announced that the cumulative output of EF lenses reached 10000. This is the number of all models in a lifetime, which is not enough for the sales of IPHONE 4S. Everyone has understood the fact that no matter how many lenses are mass-produced, the number is actually very small. If you have a slightly valuable lens in your hand, look at their lens compilation, and you will find that their production is basically in units of ten thousand (Pentax, Sony), and the best is in units of one hundred thousand (Canon, Nikon). This is enough to show that the rarer the lens, the lower the ability to share the cost in design, production and circulation, and the higher the price. So it is ok for ordinary consumers to get a cheap red circle by biting their teeth, but you can't afford a 50 1.2 or Leica. In terms of photographic equipment, it should be said that in almost all the top-level areas of consumer goods, a penny for goods, a dime for goods, and a dollar for goods are all like this, not to mention the marketing and market positioning factors of the enterprise itself. There is a legend that in order to keep the glass in the best condition, Leica controls the temperature in the final cooling step of firing, dropping by one degree Celsius per hour. It takes about two months to completely cool the lens according to the melting point of glass (so I always think this is a legend). As ordinary consumers, we have few channels to know how crazy engineers are in pursuit of the ultimate optical quality. Coupled with the wages of German blue-collar workers, or those scenes that move 20,000 to 30,000 are understandable. Again, no matter how good the lens is now, there are very few hand-polished lenses. In the era of underdeveloped machines, this is very important, but now the mechanical technology has exceeded the accuracy of human hands by too much, just like you have heard stories about chess and computer games before. Now? It's still a shame to come out, but manual assembly is still popular, not to improve accuracy. As I said before, workers can be competent wherever they see kung fu, purely to save money. Getting a robotic arm with a moving lens is much more expensive than hiring a real person. The princess lens installed in Pentax, Vietnam, is slightly different from the previous one made in Japan. The cost is saved and the price has gone up. In addition, Sony Zeiss is a Japanese de, but actually it is Fukuoka Optics, which conforms to Fu Lunda. Then why is it cheaper than Decai (if Decai can autofocus, how much do you think it will cost? )。 Of course, there are also some shots beyond my discussion ability, such as large-format shots and even some abnormal shots, which are really cost-effective. For example, carl zeiss also exhibited a medium-sized lens of mm F4 in Photokina in, which is said to be customized by a wealthy Qatari businessman for shooting wild animals and weighs kg. It is the largest telephoto lens used by non-military in the world at present, and the price is said to reach millions of dollars, and it is installed on a Hummer. Many friends expressed confidence in hand grinding, saying that the best lenses should be hand-ground. Here I emphasize my point again: 1. Today's CNC machine tools have been able to achieve nano-scale accuracy, and I never thought that human hands could achieve this level. 2. Indeed, in some top-level fields, when there are not many products needed (usually one or two), they will still be made by hand, but basically not based on accuracy, but on cost. For example, I think it's safe to mention that the best astronomical telescope lenses are all made by hand. The best is basically the level used by NASA, so the diameter of the lens is at least tens or even hundreds of centimeters, and the amount required is definitely not much. There is no need to do grinding work on precision machine tools (the cost will be very, very high), so people will be used. Grinding a piece by hand is not accurate enough. Improve it, grind it again, grind it again, and measure it again. There is always a product that meets the standard, and that's it. This is the truly accurate manual process. Professors from the University of California's School of Astronomy filmed it themselves.