vibin247
500+ Head-Fier
The Zeiss Sonnar T* 4/1700 weighs about 564 lbs. and there is one buyer so far. An action photographer's wet dream perhaps?
Perhaps the world's largest telephoto lens...
- Thread starter vibin247
- Start date
The Zeiss Sonnar T* 4/1700 weighs about 564 lbs. and there is one buyer so far. An action photographer's wet dream perhaps?
JaGWiRE
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Posts
- 3,386
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
I thought I read abou some 300 kg like 1800mm Canon? I know canon has the 1200mm. I also remember reading about this one I think, but not sure.
| Originally Posted by vibin247
The Zeiss Sonnar T* 4/1700 weighs about 564 lbs. and there is one buyer so far. An action photographer's wet dream perhaps?
|
I thought I read abou some 300 kg like 1800mm Canon? I know canon has the 1200mm. I also remember reading about this one I think, but not sure.
skyline889
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Posts
- 4,271
- Likes
- 17
Quote:
Too bad it's for a Hasselblad...JK
. Great cameras, just hideously ugly.
Quote:
I don't believe Canon makes an 1800mm telephoto. Canon did make a 2000mm and a 5200mm "TV" lens way back when, but the 5200 weighed in at 100kg. The Zeiss weighs 265kg. Nikkor made a 1200-1700mm zoom, along with the infamous, telescope like 2000mm Reflex from the '70s. The Reflex only weighed in at a measly 17.5kg though.
Edit: It should probably be known that the Canon and Nikkor lenses above are "Mirror" lenses, which differ from actual telephotos in design, but produce relatively similar results.
| Originally Posted by vibin247 The Zeiss Sonnar T* 4/1700 weighs about 564 lbs. and there is one buyer so far. An action photographer's wet dream perhaps?
|
Too bad it's for a Hasselblad...JK
Quote:
| Originally Posted by JaGWiRE I thought I read abou some 300 kg like 1800mm Canon? I know canon has the 1200mm. I also remember reading about this one I think, but not sure. |
I don't believe Canon makes an 1800mm telephoto. Canon did make a 2000mm and a 5200mm "TV" lens way back when, but the 5200 weighed in at 100kg. The Zeiss weighs 265kg. Nikkor made a 1200-1700mm zoom, along with the infamous, telescope like 2000mm Reflex from the '70s. The Reflex only weighed in at a measly 17.5kg though.
Edit: It should probably be known that the Canon and Nikkor lenses above are "Mirror" lenses, which differ from actual telephotos in design, but produce relatively similar results.
JaGWiRE
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Posts
- 3,386
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Oh well, whatever. Not that it really matters, none of us would ever get to us one. Would be cool for astronomy maybe.
The aperture on these things though really are quite amusing for their focal lengths. :\.
| Originally Posted by skyline889 Too bad it's for a Hasselblad...JK
I don't believe Canon makes an 1800mm telephoto. Nikkor makes a 1200-1700mm zoom though, along with the infamous, telescope like 2000mm Reflex from the '70s... |
Oh well, whatever. Not that it really matters, none of us would ever get to us one. Would be cool for astronomy maybe.
The aperture on these things though really are quite amusing for their focal lengths. :\.
skyline889
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Posts
- 4,271
- Likes
- 17
Quote:
Yes, because of this you end up using something like a ten second exposure, not very practical for most purposes.
| Originally Posted by JaGWiRE The aperture on these things though really are quite amusing for their focal lengths. :\. |
Yes, because of this you end up using something like a ten second exposure, not very practical for most purposes.
mb3k
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Posts
- 1,101
- Likes
- 11
Looks like a heavy telescope
WHat's the focal point?
alex_cs
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Posts
- 394
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
eh?
as far as i can tell this thing has a F4 rating. crack on a 400 or 800 ISO and good sunlight and youll be getting a 1/1000th exp quite easily. remembering, a great deal of super long work is done in good sunlight, although 1800mm is starting to get silly. the canon 600/4 is already probably overkill, the 400/2.8 is the one to get.
| Originally Posted by skyline889 Yes, because of this you end up using something like a ten second exposure, not very practical for most purposes. |
eh?
as far as i can tell this thing has a F4 rating. crack on a 400 or 800 ISO and good sunlight and youll be getting a 1/1000th exp quite easily. remembering, a great deal of super long work is done in good sunlight, although 1800mm is starting to get silly. the canon 600/4 is already probably overkill, the 400/2.8 is the one to get.
JahJahBinks
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2002
- Posts
- 3,306
- Likes
- 11
How do you carry that around with you on each travel?
vibin247
500+ Head-Fier
Quote:
A team of dedicated and well-paid photo assistants.
| Originally Posted by JahJahBinks How do you carry that around with you on each travel? |
A team of dedicated and well-paid photo assistants.
Holybanana
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Posts
- 99
- Likes
- 10
Wow!
milkpowder
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Posts
- 8,496
- Likes
- 21
Might I enquire how much this beast costs? More than your "average" Hasselblad?
alex_cs
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Posts
- 394
- Likes
- 10
most probably worth at least 100,000 USD. the canon 1200/5.6 was worth this much.
skyline889
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Posts
- 4,271
- Likes
- 17
Quote:
The old 1200-1700mm Nikkors at F5.6 used to require shutter speeds of almost a full second if the lighting wasn't ridiculously bright. Keep in mind that this is for film, not digital.
| Originally Posted by alex_cs eh? as far as i can tell this thing has a F4 rating. crack on a 400 or 800 ISO and good sunlight and youll be getting a 1/1000th exp quite easily. remembering, a great deal of super long work is done in good sunlight, although 1800mm is starting to get silly. the canon 600/4 is already probably overkill, the 400/2.8 is the one to get. |
PiccoloNamek
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2006
- Posts
- 3,021
- Likes
- 59
Jesus christ.
I can't even imagine how expensive it must be.
I can't even imagine how expensive it must be.
JaGWiRE
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Posts
- 3,386
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
Umm? Dude, I don't think you'de use this for sports photography or something where your trying to "freeze" motion because you would probably not be travelling with a lens this size much.
And at almost 600 pounds, I'm certain you would have it on a tripod, in which case a 10 second shutter speed wouldn't really matter all that. For the amount of time needed to probably get ahold of one of these things, waiting 10 seconds to get a shot I'm sure wouldn't kill anybody. I use slow shutter speeds all the time in my room because I don't shoot stuff in motion and well, my room has sh1t lighting, even at ISO 3200 your using damn slow shutter speeds. I found a tripod can easily fix this.
| Originally Posted by skyline889 Yes, because of this you end up using something like a ten second exposure, not very practical for most purposes. |
Umm? Dude, I don't think you'de use this for sports photography or something where your trying to "freeze" motion because you would probably not be travelling with a lens this size much.
And at almost 600 pounds, I'm certain you would have it on a tripod, in which case a 10 second shutter speed wouldn't really matter all that. For the amount of time needed to probably get ahold of one of these things, waiting 10 seconds to get a shot I'm sure wouldn't kill anybody. I use slow shutter speeds all the time in my room because I don't shoot stuff in motion and well, my room has sh1t lighting, even at ISO 3200 your using damn slow shutter speeds. I found a tripod can easily fix this.
Users who are viewing this thread
