| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2006 11:18:58 AM · #1 |
| The World's Largest Telephoto lens, a Carl Zeiss 1700mm f/4 medium format telephoto, 256Kg (564 lbs)...35mm equivalent to 920mm f/4...no price quoted... |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:28:25 AM · #2 |
And a Hassy mount.
Read it was a one-off for an arab oil sheik who likes to shoot "birds".
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:31:25 AM · #3 |
Holyfreekinmotherofgod!
At 564 poinds, you'd need a crane to move the thing! Can you imagine the tripod?
A 1700mm f/4 lens would be fun to play with though. :D
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:39:11 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
...35mm equivalent to 920mm f/4...no price quoted... |
Not to be contrary, but I didn't think anyone used "equivalents" on the lens side, just the body side with APS and smaller frames. ???
Anyways, amazing lens, would love to have one. Never going to happen :(
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:39:51 AM · #5 |
| I'm guessing in the neighborhood of $30,000 and you won't be taking it to the ballgame or zoo with you. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:41:06 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Not to be contrary, but I didn't think anyone used "equivalents" on the lens side, just the body side with APS and smaller frames. ???
|
Nope, it goes the other way too. For a 6x6cm frame, the "equivalent" focal length is shortened compared with a 35 mm frame. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:42:08 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by doctornick:
...35mm equivalent to 920mm f/4...no price quoted... |
Not to be contrary, but I didn't think anyone used "equivalents" on the lens side, just the body side with APS and smaller frames. ???
Anyways, amazing lens, would love to have one. Never going to happen :( |
The lens is a Medium Format mount lens producing a much bigger image circle than 35mm SLR lenses, so in 35mm SLR mount terms it's equivalent to a 920mm f/4 :) |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:45:29 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
I'm guessing in the neighborhood of $30,000 and you won't be taking it to the ballgame or zoo with you. |
I think it would be quite safe to add a zero to the end of that...
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:56:42 AM · #9 |
What this means is that on a 6x6 camera, a 1700mm lens covers the same angle of view as a 920mm lens on a 35mm camera. If you MOUNTED this lens on a 35mm camera, the lens would, of course, BE a 1700mm lens, plain and simple, if you use 35mm film size as the baseline. Further, if you mounted this puppy in a 20D, it would be the equivalent of a 2720mm lens on a 35mm camera...
The larger the film/sensor, the wider the angular coverage and the "shorter" the equivalent would be, using 35mm as base; as you make the film/sensor smaller, the equivalency flips.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:57:41 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by strangeghost:
I'm guessing in the neighborhood of $30,000 and you won't be taking it to the ballgame or zoo with you. |
I think it would be quite safe to add a zero to the end of that... |
No kidding! If you could bet this for 30,000 bucks it would be the steal of a lifetime :-)
How did your race go, btw?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:58:12 AM · #11 |
Leica once had a lens that was so expensive that if you bought it they gave you a Volkswagon for free.
I don't remember the specs, but there free car was a nice touch.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:05:57 PM · #12 |
wow that thing would take up some serious bag space. lol
I think I could live with out one of these. I could probably live on a Yacht with the money I didn't spend on one. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:14:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be quite safe to add a zero to the end of that... |
It would be interesting to see if someone could dig up a price. I was basing my guestimate on the price of high quality telescope optics (Takahashi, Televue) and high quality camera lenses of similar focal length and aperture. Zeiss is top of the top of the line, so I might go as high as 100K, but I doubt 300K. T'would be interesting to know. I'm sure somebody (who is not at work, like me) will google an answer out of this... |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:31:08 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think it would be quite safe to add a zero to the end of that... |
It would be interesting to see if someone could dig up a price. I was basing my guestimate on the price of high quality telescope optics (Takahashi, Televue) and high quality camera lenses of similar focal length and aperture. Zeiss is top of the top of the line, so I might go as high as 100K, but I doubt 300K. T'would be interesting to know. I'm sure somebody (who is not at work, like me) will google an answer out of this... |
"At 1700 mm focal length and a speed of f/4 this lens put requirements on optical glas, lens assembly and quality assurance methods, never before encountered in photo lens manufacture. This 256 kg behemoth also required Carl Zeiss to develop totally new ways of operating a telephoto lens, including servo controlled aiming and focusing."
This is a one-off lens at this point, is what we're basing our "guesstimate" on. Certainly if it ever went into limited production the price would be somewhat more realistic. As a side note, 1700mm isn't all THAT far out of line for a 35mm camera lens, length-wise, and you can build an optically superior lens for 35mm much more easily; but when you have to cover the 6x6 image circle, that's a whole other ball of wax... The thing that really makes this one especially tough, of course, is that little "f/4.0" appellation: on a 1700mm lens, an f/4 aperture is 425mm, which is roughly 16 3/4 inches!!!
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:47:15 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The thing that really makes this one especially tough, of course, is that little "f/4.0" appellation |
Yup - otherwise he could have just bought this 1200 f/11 and attached a 400D for a total cost of less than USD 3,000:
Here
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 13:37:09.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:49:28 PM · #16 |
| What? No rotating tripod collar? ;-) |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:52:35 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
What? No rotating tripod collar? ;-) |
Two words: "Square Format" :-) That's the wonderful thing about shooting with a Hasselblad...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:55:00 PM · #18 |
Doesn't Canon's largest production lens the 1200mm go for more than $100,000? I was basing my price on that.
Thanks for asking Bear, my race is Oct 1st. I just had a 20 mile training run last weekend which went quite well...
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:58:50 PM · #19 |
| This sounds like a better deal ... only $8,000 ... |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:00:17 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Doesn't Canon's largest production lens the 1200mm go for more than $100,000? I was basing my price on that.
Thanks for asking Bear, my race is Oct 1st. I just had a 20 mile training run last weekend which went quite well... |
That lens is supposedly discontinued now, and it was always a special order item; you paid for one and they built it for you. I have seen prices ranging from 65K to 111K, the lower price dating back to 2003... In any case, by "somewhat more realistic" I meant in the 150K range :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:03:43 PM · #21 |
big lens indeed. Some more realistic monsters include...
Canon's 1200mm 5.6 (I believe while in production it cost about $60,000)
nikon's 1200-1700 5.6-8
the sigmonster 300-800mm 5.6 |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:09:17 PM · #22 |
Thats some lens! But at 920mm (35mm equiv) f/4 I don't feel to bad about my 600mm + 1.4TC = 850mm f/4 (35mm equiv) and the best thing about it I can actualy take it somewhere to shoot wildlife (-:
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:14:54 PM · #23 |
It looks like a spaceship from EVE Online or Star Trek. It probably includes a Ford F250 to mount it on.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:24:38 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The thing that really makes this one especially tough, of course, is that little "f/4.0" appellation |
Yup - otherwise he could have just bought this 1200 f/11 and attached a 400D for a total cost of less than USD 3,000:
//cgi.ebay.co.uk/blah-blah-blah |
dude, www.tinyurl.com
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 13:25:21.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 01:37:39 PM · #25 |
hehe - or even just forum code. Sorry for being lazy - fixed!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 07:33:25 PM EDT.
