Reading mode: Light Dark

The mother of all lenses!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon Ragnarsson
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
echelon2004 said:
typical zeiss ;)
Click to expand...
The Zeiss release mentions that the lens has servo controlled aiming and focusing. I assume the servo controlled focusing is why it has an LCD at the rear of the lens, to display focus range, aperture, and probably DOF. I can only imagine that the servo controlled aiming would be something like power steering, or a military power assisted gun mount. I hope it has good safety features, if something goes wrong, you don't want a 600 pound, 3 foot lens whacking the photographer.

--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.

It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
My TPP 300/2.8 ( no. 9300078, with a matched 1.7X and at the mercy of Zeiss, a slot loading CPL filter ) for 205TCC and with adapter I now use the lens on Contax 645 wiht P45, focus at 2.8 and close down to take picture. I paid for the lens back in arond 2001 for approx. 18,000 USD, it think this lens cost at least 200X more, or at the neighborhood of 5 million USD unless Zeiss produce it at lesser cost with consideration of PR. The TPP is cost base on projected batch of 300pcs but most likely Zeiss does not meet the number due to limitation of available quantity of acceptable glass. This lens must be ordered at single digit, if not just one, so the cost should be very high.

If this lens can be use on 205 then it is possible still be able to use on Contax 645 and most of the 135mm system camera, either film or digital.

--
Khun_K
 
fwiw ... 1700mm @ f/4, the objective lens would be a little over 16.7" (42.5cm)! Just for the sake of having a human perspective of the size of this creation, here's a 16" Meade scope (mirror) for comparison:



Any idea if it's a lens or mirror design? I just can't imagine the cost of producing a 16.7" objective alone! (imo high six-fig. or more just for the optics).
 
I would believe the real match will need to be a lens of somewhere around 2200mm at f/2.8 on full frame 135mm mount to compare to 1700/4 on 6X6 (56mmX56mm) camera.

Can't wait for Zeiss to release the pictures actually taken on such a lens. A true achievement.
--
Khun_K
 
Wow! all that technology and.....then attach a 100 year old camera to it! Glad I kept my Hassy.

 
I am sure that those two circular extensions in the middle of the lens are to slide it into some type of VERY heavy duty yoke/gimbal mount. A conventional tripod would not get it done.
 
Can that lens really cost $5 million as speculated?

I guess it can...but what would a telescope in an observatory cost. Do they sell for like $50,000,000.

If we compare optics qualtiy and glass...the observatory telescope must trump the Zeiss lens...right?
 
E1derful said:
Can that lens really cost $5 million as speculated?
Click to expand...
Easily.
E1derful said:
what would a telescope in an observatory cost.
Do they sell for like $50,000,000.
Click to expand...
What sensitivity does your telescope have? What is the shortest focal distance? How many are being made? All such factors do influence price.

Did you know, btw, that Zeiss supplied some of the vital parts (like the mirrors) for the world's largest astronomical telescope in Chile?
E1derful said:
If we compare optics qualtiy and glass...the observatory telescope
must trump the Zeiss lens...right?
Click to expand...
How can we tell from the information we have so far?
 
They are clearly comparing the magnification to what you get with an 80mm normal lens for 6x6 format. I actually like that as a format independent way of describing angular FOV.

But it is strange that they mention the 203 FE, a discontinued model in the discontinued Hasselblad 200 series.
 
BJL said:
They are clearly comparing the magnification to what you get with
an 80mm normal lens for 6x6 format.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understood how they came up with the number. But that doesn't change the fact that a lens doesn't have a single magnification number that is assigned in a manner similar to an afocal device.
BJL said:
I actually like that as a
format independent way of describing angular FOV.
Click to expand...
I know that a lot of people like and use this convention. I just find it odd that Leica has embraced it.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top