New Lens for Harry

Nikolai · September 12, 2006

Provided he's willing to drop his N**** and take on MF:
Carl Zeiss 1700mm:
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/8baac109cb80bddfc12571e100393a1b

DJ-S1 · September 12, 2006

f/4???

550lbs???

Nikolai · September 12, 2006

It think it's a typo

DJ-S1 wrote:

f/4??? 550lbs???

24Kg, or 55lb

Harryb · September 12, 2006

Nikolai wrote:

24Kg, or 55lb

The 55lbs I could handle ( I got my Beach Rolly) but giving up Nikon? Never gonna happen.

claudermilk · September 13, 2006

Even for a Hasselblad? That's a high-end medium format on there, not a 35mm SLR or DSLR. I'll bet the complete rig costs more than the truck that will serve as it's tripod.

...then add a digital back to it, can you say CHA-CHING!

I wonder what the LCD screen shown on the top view shows.

Nikolai · September 13, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

I wonder what the LCD screen shown on the top view shows.

I bet this thing has its own chip inside, so it tells you the wind temperature, amount of CA you're currently getting, how Ansel would frame this particular shot and the distance to the nearest ribs place.

Mike Lane · September 13, 2006

Nikolai wrote:

24Kg, or 55lb

The zeiss website claims it is 256Kg. That doesn't look like a typo to me

Mike Lane · September 13, 2006

Just for laughs, I wonder what the focal length would be on an APS-C camera (imagining there was such a thing as an adapter for it).

Nikolai · September 13, 2006

Well,

Mike Lane wrote:

The zeiss website claims it is 256Kg. That doesn't look like a typo to me

I guess if they included batteries, motors, gyros and the coke machine, it can be 256Kg... It's like, two average americans, or three europeans

You'd need a humvee to haul this thing...

Awais Yaqub · September 13, 2006

I want autograph of owner of this thing

claudermilk · September 14, 2006

Nikolai wrote:

I bet this thing has its own chip inside, so it tells you the wind temperature, amount of CA you're currently getting, how Ansel would frame this particular shot and the distance to the nearest ribs place.

Oohh! oohh! The Ansel Adams Button!

If my math is right Mike, it comes out to...1700mm. Recall that 6x6 considers 80mm "normal" while 35mm is 50mm. That's back to a 1.6 factor, so FF 35mm is more like 1062mm. Or am I thinking about this bass-ackwards & it should be more like 2720mm? Either way, you'll still get the nose-hairs shot of the lion on the opposite side of the Sahara.

Of course for all of us this is like arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin--we'll never even see this beast much less get to use it.

Mike Lane · September 14, 2006

claudermilk wrote:

Oohh! oohh! The Ansel Adams Button!

If my math is right Mike, it comes out to...1700mm. Recall that 6x6 considers 80mm "normal" while 35mm is 50mm. That's back to a 1.6 factor, so FF 35mm is more like 1062mm. Or am I thinking about this bass-ackwards & it should be more like 2720mm? Either way, you'll still get the nose-hairs shot of the lion on the opposite side of the Sahara. Of course for all of us this is like arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin--we'll never even see this beast much less get to use it.

bass ackwards

Remember it would essentially be a crop factor just like if you put a 500mm lens on a 20D it becomes an 800mm lens.

The article said it was for a 6x6 medium format camera. Being not too familiar with the format does that mean 6 inches by 6 inches or 6 cm by 6 cm? Oh wait, I just found an LL article about it and it's 6cm x 6cm (I was thinking that 6" would be crazy huge

).

Anywho, 6x6 format is 60mm x 60mm and APS-C is 22.7mm x 15.1mm. That makes the crop factor (I think) about 2.6. That means that the 1700 becomes a 4420mm lens on the 20d (theoretically).

DoctorIt · September 14, 2006

nevermind the servos and gyros... think about the size of the piece of glass: 1700 f4!!! :uhoh

Harry, you might need 2 beach rollys and a sherpa.

claudermilk · September 15, 2006

Mike Lane wrote:

bass ackwards Remember it would essentially be a crop factor just like if you put a 500mm lens on a 20D it becomes an 800mm lens.

The article said it was for a 6x6 medium format camera. Being not too familiar with the format does that mean 6 inches by 6 inches or 6 cm by 6 cm? Oh wait, I just found an LL article about it and it's 6cm x 6cm (I was thinking that 6" would be crazy huge ).

Anywho, 6x6 format is 60mm x 60mm and APS-C is 22.7mm x 15.1mm. That makes the crop factor (I think) about 2.6. That means that the 1700 becomes a 4420mm lens on the 20d (theoretically).

I thought it might be. So throw a 20D on there & take pictures of hte footprints on the moon.

As you found, MF is 6cmx6cm....or 6x4.5....or 6x7....or 6x9...

If you really want to get crazy huge: http://www.polaroid.com/global/detail.jsp;jsessionid=FKFq0vPU8OjWQf2AJjkL7XIL5F15Hpu617OufDyYhDMhEYnxLkQZ!836700769!-1979950377!7005!8005!204226522!-1979950386!7005!8005?PRODUCT<>prd_id=845524441760008&FOLDER<>folder_id=2534374302028647&bmUID=1158333738922&bmLocale=en_US

I read an article about something like this they used at Yosemite once...they used a U-Haul to move it around & basically backed the truck up to the scene.

But, a poster-sized contact print?

Seefutlung · September 15, 2006

Hell at 256kg ... I can handhold that bad boy all day long ... a Hassel and a handstrap is all I need. .. and maybe a good doctor or two (a shrink for thinking I could and an MD for after trying).

Gary

Justiceiro · September 15, 2006

when the focal length for lenses is given, I don't believe that conversion is done from MF cameras to 35mm; what I mean is that a 50mm MF has the same coverage when attached )via an adaptor) to a 35mm camera as a 50mm lens does on a 35mm camera. What I mean to say, is that if I put a canon 300mm on my 20d, I should get the same magnification as when I attach my 300mm orestegor (an MF lens), right?

Seefutlung · September 15, 2006

Justiceiro wrote:

when the focal length for lenses is given, I don't believe that conversion is done from MF cameras to 35mm; what I mean is that a 50mm MF has the same coverage when attached )via an adaptor) to a 35mm camera as a 50mm lens does on a 35mm camera. What I mean to say, is that if I put a canon 300mm on my 20d, I should get the same magnification as when I attach my 300mm orestegor (an MF lens), right?

Interesting thought ... a normal lens for a 2 ana quarter x 2 ana quarter Hasselblad (for example) is 80mm. I think you would get the same type of prespective/crop factor using a 300mm MF on a 35mm FF as one would when switching between a FF and a APS-C size sensor. The magnification would be the same ... the perspective is different.

Mike Lane · September 15, 2006

Justiceiro wrote:

when the focal length for lenses is given, I don't believe that conversion is done from MF cameras to 35mm; what I mean is that a 50mm MF has the same coverage when attached )via an adaptor) to a 35mm camera as a 50mm lens does on a 35mm camera. What I mean to say, is that if I put a canon 300mm on my 20d, I should get the same magnification as when I attach my 300mm orestegor (an MF lens), right?

yes, a lens is a lens is a lens. But no, you wouldn't see the same thing on a 20D that you see on a FF camera or a medium format due to the crop factor. Basically you're only seeing fraction of the full viewing angle due to a smaller sensor.

Or maybe I misunderstood your question and you already knew all that...

Seefutlung · September 15, 2006

Awais Yaqub wrote:

I want autograph of owner of this thing

Me too ... on a check.

claudermilk · September 16, 2006

Seefutlung wrote:

Interesting thought ... a normal lens for a 2 ana quarter x 2 ana quarter Hasselblad (for example) is 80mm. I think you would get the same type of prespective/crop factor using a 300mm MF on a 35mm FF as one would when switching between a FF and a APS-C size sensor. The magnification would be the same ... the perspective is different.

Close. Like Mike said a lens is a lens. The magnification is the same, the perspective is the same. The field of view is different. So the 1700mm field of view on the 6x6 format translates to approximately a 2700mm field of view on a 35mm, and 4400mm field of view on an APS-C DSLR. Same image is being projected, you're just grabbing a smaller & smaller rectangle out of the center of the image circle. I just finished reading The Camera & Mr. Adams did a great job of explaining how that works. So, as Mike kindly pointed out my first flawed calculation was bass-ackwards. It's like taking a severe crop of the 6x6 image: same detail but a tighter framing.

Heh, heh. So we get a converter, the slap a 2x on top of that: 8800mm on a 20D! :ivar That's just silly & the minimum focus distance is probably the next state.

DJ-S1 · October 2, 2006

Update: It was at Photokina, and it's on dpreview today. Check out the first image link showing it hanging over people's heads! Wow! And that was no typo, it really does weigh in at 564 pounds!

ziggy53 · October 3, 2006

DJ-S1 wrote:

Update: It was at Photokina, and it's on dpreview today. Check out the first image link showing it hanging over people's heads! Wow! And that was no typo, it really does weigh in at 564 pounds!

... and if you look reeeeally carefully, you can see Andy reaching for his wallet! Anyone for Sherpa duty?

ziggy53 (trouble with a capital "T".

)

claudermilk · October 4, 2006

Gotta be a BIG wallet. Did anyone catch the oblique price hints? One raw lens casting being the price of a luxury car? *Then* they do finish work on it...and there's 15 elements! I'm guessing the pricetag is six digits and the first one is likely not a "1" :twitch Ahh...if only I had that kind of cash laying around with nothing better to use it on...

New Lens for Harry

Comments