Carl Zeiss 1700mm f/4 lens - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L

09/12/2006 01:42:38 PM · #26

if you put this lens on a 35mm camera, it would be a 1700mm lens. It would act the same as a 1700mm lens designed for 35mm. On a 6x6 camera it may look like a shorter lens...

Originally posted by TomH1000:

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 (-:

your 850mm lens is not even close to 1700mm.

edit: oh it's a 300mm x 1.4 = 420mm. Yeah on a 35mm it's 840mm but this lens is 1700mm on 35mm.

Message edited by author 2006-09-12 13:46:44.

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/12/2006 01:46:33 PM · #27

is that arabic on the side ? can anyone read it (or see the crest ?)
no doubt belongs to the 'client'

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/12/2006 03:08:48 PM · #28

Originally posted by TomH1000:

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 (-:

This is backwards... 1700mm on a 6x6 camera like a Hasselblad is the equivalent in angular coverage of a 920mm lens on a 35mm camera. But THIS lens is still a 1700mm if you mount it on a 35mm camera, see?

EVERY lens is what it is regardless of the platform it's mounted on. This lens is a 1700mm lens on a Hasselblad or a 35mm camera or a 20D or whatever: all that changes is that it is the "equivalent" of whatever gives the same angular coverage on the benchmark 35mm body. So on a film Nikon or on a Canon 5D (a full frame sensor), it's a 1700mm lens. Mount it on the 6x6 'blad and it's "like" a 920mm lens. Mount it on the 20D and it's "like" a 2720mm lens. Lenses are "like" (equivalent to) shorter lenses on larger sensors and longer lenses on smaller sensors; the 35mm film size is the benchmark, the "nominal" 1:1 "crop factor" as it were. Nothing about the lens itself changes...

Robt.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

09/12/2006 03:55:48 PM · #29

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by TomH1000:
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 (-:

This is backwards... 1700mm on a 6x6 camera like a Hasselblad is the equivalent in angular coverage of a 920mm lens on a 35mm camera. But THIS lens is still a 1700mm if you mount it on a 35mm camera, see?

EVERY lens is what it is regardless of the platform it's mounted on. This lens is a 1700mm lens on a Hasselblad or a 35mm camera or a 20D or whatever: all that changes is that it is the "equivalent" of whatever gives the same angular coverage on the benchmark 35mm body. So on a film Nikon or on a Canon 5D (a full frame sensor), it's a 1700mm lens. Mount it on the 6x6 'blad and it's "like" a 920mm lens. Mount it on the 20D and it's "like" a 2720mm lens. Lenses are "like" (equivalent to) shorter lenses on larger sensors and longer lenses on smaller sensors; the 35mm film size is the benchmark, the "nominal" 1:1 "crop factor" as it were. Nothing about the lens itself changes...

Robt.

It's not backwards. I agree with what you are saying. I never said I had an 840mm lens. I only said it was 840mm 35mm equiv. 300mm lens is what it is and nothing more and that 1700mm lens is a wonderful piece of work but, in reality what good is it if you need a truck to carry it around? What kind of wildlife could you capture with it?

darnok

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

09/12/2006 04:09:50 PM · #30

Originally posted by TomH1000:

The kind that are very far away. You could just shoot from the back of a truck. I wouldn't want to carry a 600mm lens for a long time either.

samtrundle

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/02/2006 12:21:12 AM · #31

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...

I believe Canon asks about $80K for it's made to order 1200mm lenses (of which I think there are only about a dozen in existence - 2 of which are apparently owned by sports illustrated). So with that in mind I daresay the Zeiss f4 1700mm would definately go close to the $300 K mark...if not well above :P.

Message edited by author 2006-10-02 00:22:07.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

10/02/2006 12:02:34 PM · #32

Nikon has (had?) the made to order 1200-1700mm f5.6-8P ED IF that was introduced supposedly because sporting press boxes were getting further from the action. At introduction in 1993 it was $78500 U.S. It weighs 35.5lbs and is 34.6" long.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/02/2006 12:14:58 PM · #33

That 1700mm lens weighs 564lbs. Good luck getting that TO the wildlife!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/02/2006 06:56:10 PM · #34

Dear Friends
I would like to explain to some of you about this lens, it is made for government of Qatar and it is for Museum authority and it is on of 25000 price of camera and photograph will be displayed, Qatar got the copyright for this lens and it is in Genus record as the biggest lens in the world

For more in Arabic please see

www.qpsimages.com

and for competetion

www.al-thaniaward.com

Thank you

Message edited by author 2006-10-02 19:06:57.

frisca

Nikon D70

10/02/2006 07:16:12 PM · #35

Abdulrahman,

How did you find out about us talking about your lens?

Sincerely,

Your friends at DPC

Originally posted by fakhroo:

Dear Friends
I would like to explain to some of you about this lens, it is made for government of Qatar and it is for Museum authority and it is on of 25000 price of camera and photograph will be displayed, Qatar got the copyright for this lens and it is in Genus record as the biggest lens in the world

For more in Arabic please see

//www.qpsimages.com

and for competetion

//www.al-thaniaward.com

Thank you

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/02/2006 07:46:40 PM · #36

I am confused. The blurb said "and a speed of f/4." F/4 is an aperature rating whichm granted, means one can get an EV faster shutter speed than if the limit were f/5.6, but in and of itself, an aperature is not a speed measurement. Was that a mistake on their part or am I missing something?

On a related note, . Thank you.

10/02/2006 08:01:57 PM · #37

Originally posted by frisca:

Abdulrahman,

How did you find out about us talking about your lens?

Sincerely,

Your friends at DPC

No I just was searching for this lens as you see I am from Qatar and I am interested to now what other think about this lens

AF

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/02/2006 09:15:24 PM · #38

Originally posted by fakhroo:

I followed your links and hunted around for mention of the Apo Sonnar lens but saw no mention of it. The other string talking about this baby does, though. It is here.

Message edited by author 2006-10-02 22:33:27.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/02/2006 09:27:06 PM · #39

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

I followed your links and hunted around for mention of the Apo Sonnar lens and saw no mention of it let alone its relation to Qatar. Also, I assume you mean largest lens for 35mm cameras.

see this

//qpsimages.com/emagazine/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=102

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

10/02/2006 09:28:18 PM · #40

Is there an english translation? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that most people here don't read arabic.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/02/2006 10:29:45 PM · #41

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Is there an english translation? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that most people here don't read arabic.

Yeah, that would be the little word that says "english" down in the bottom left of each of the pages.

fotomann_forever

10/02/2006 10:36:08 PM · #42

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

"f/4.0" appellation: on a 1700mm lens, an f/4 aperture is 425mm, which is roughly 16 3/4 inches!!!

Robt.

Sooo, some serious shallow DoF?

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/02/2006 10:49:43 PM · #43

Well that would mean that if you focused it at exactly a mile, the total DoF would be 1117.841 feet, so yeah. :-P

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/02/2006 10:51:02 PM · #44

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Is there an english translation? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that most people here don't read arabic.

Yeah, that would be the little word that says "english" down in the bottom left of each of the pages.

Where exactly, smart guy.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/02/2006 11:11:22 PM · #45

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

In the photographic vernacular, f/2.8 lenses are "faster" than f/5.6 lenses. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is a VERY "fast" lens, so that's a correct usage basically. F/4.0 is VERY fast for an extreme telephoto like that.

R.

Message edited by author 2006-10-02 23:40:18.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/02/2006 11:13:51 PM · #46

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Is there an english translation? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that most people here don't read arabic.

Yeah, that would be the little word that says "english" down in the bottom left of each of the pages.

Where exactly, smart guy.

Forget it. I was talking about the links Fahkroo originally posted.