# Now THIS is a big lens!



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2008)

This is a Nikon 1200-1700mm zoom lens! 16kg in weight and 880mm in length!

MF Zoom-Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6~8.0s P ED IF


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Jan 8, 2008)

jeez! perving from a dsitance just became easier!


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jan 8, 2008)

i'm not sure thats what he has in mind mate but still good surgestion.


----------



## Glider (Jan 8, 2008)

This is getting silly. You might as well buy a good telescope with the Camera attachment, save yourself a small fortune, get a better magnification and save Hospital bills for a dislocated shoulder.


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 8, 2008)

Glider said:


> This is getting silly. You might as well buy a good telescope with the Camera attachment, save yourself a small fortune, get a better magnification and save Hospital bills for a dislocated shoulder.



I kinda agree, that does take the cake for over kill. No offense Eric. I would think taking arerial shots would be alot harder.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jan 8, 2008)

Is that for up close and real personal


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2008)

I stumbled across this last night and couldn't believe it. I wouldn't want anything that big for many reasons, the main one being my back!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2008)

Sh!t, at 16kg??? Man Eric, u carried way more than that strapped to ur ass back in the day...

Oh wait a minute, we're in our 40's now arent we???

Whats the pricetag on something like that??


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 8, 2008)

2008 Ford Mustang???


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2008)

Probably pretty damn close Lucky...


----------



## Becca (Jan 8, 2008)

GOOD Lord, you'd be able to see thru TIME with that thing!!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2008)

Yeah, Dan, carrying 16kg in the heat isn't my idea of fun anymore. Although it is a lot more enjoyable when you don't have to dodge bullets! By the way that lens is a _manual _focus too! They were a limited production run in the 1990s and from what I have read were about $90,000 (yes, for one manual focus lens!). I could buy a truckload of gear for that price tag.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2008)

Yeah, that's WAY too big. If I was going to look into a big zoom, which I may someday, I'd look at the Sigma "sigmonster" 300-800mm. A much lighter 12 lbs is easier to hand hold for shots (well, lighter than that Nikkor mortar tube). Plus the price tag is a more budget friendly $6,000. Not that $6k is friendly to _my _budget, but still friendlier than $90k.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 8, 2008)

E.G? for $90.000 for that d*ck extension thingy....if I handed you the money, what would you buy instead for your photographic needs??


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 8, 2008)

Could you image if you accidently just dropped that thing once or some one accidently ran into you.


----------



## ccheese (Jan 8, 2008)

I've got a five inch (dia) Meade telescope with a fitting for my Nikon D70.
And it was under $300.00. With it I can photograph most of the heavens.
And it don't break my back hauling it ! $90k.... unbelieveable !

Charles


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2008)

You can buy insurance for your gear, and for 90k, I would think it would be a must! 

And for 90k, I'd go nuts for gear, and still be under budget:
2 Nikon D300 bodies (about $1,800 each)
1 Nikkor 200-400mm (about $6000)
1 Nikkor 18-200mm (about $750)
1 Sigma 300-800mm (about $6000)
Batteries, flash cards, accessories, probably about 1200-1500 max.

All of that comes to $17,850. Now, I could go to the Nikon D3 pro grade camera bodies at about 4,500 a piece, which would bump me up about 5000 or so. So even at that, I'm at about 22-23k. I couldn't imagine spending that kind of dough on one lens that would be of limited use to me. Heck, I wouldn't spend $500 on a limited use lens! Now if someone gave me the lens, I would play with it for a day or 2, then sell it for some real gear!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 8, 2008)

Smart man....


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 8, 2008)

Very smart!!! Im guessing that guy doesnt use that lens very often though. Unless your shooting something all the time thats really far away.


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 8, 2008)

Methinks someone is compensating for deficiencies in other areas…………..!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2008)

hehe, could be, Downwind. I think I read somewhere that the lens was specifically designed for baseball. I couldn't help but think; "You know, I could probably shoot a baseball game from the upper atmosphere with that Howitzer!"


----------



## Njaco (Jan 8, 2008)

or for papparazzi. They get some wild photos sometimes. Probably the cost is supported by some newspaper or something.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 8, 2008)

Holy sh*t that is definitely overkill!


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 8, 2008)

BTW, nice sig pic Gnomey - is that real or a photoshop montage? THAT just has to be the most beautiful aeroplane ever built to date, despite the angst that rages on the dedicated thread!


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jan 8, 2008)

Next...sticking that thing on the biggest sniper rifle available and calling it a sniper cannon...


----------



## wilbur1 (Jan 8, 2008)

Njaco said:


> or for papparazzi. They get some wild photos sometimes. Probably the cost is supported by some newspaper or something.



If you look at the top towards the end you can see a sticker for RUETERS news.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 8, 2008)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> BTW, nice sig pic Gnomey - is that real or a photoshop montage? THAT just has to be the most beautiful aeroplane ever built to date, despite the angst that rages on the dedicated thread!



As far as I know it is a real pic (I downloaded it of the internet). I have edited it in Photoshop from the original which was this:


----------



## Njaco (Jan 8, 2008)

ahhh haaa  

Konig, you could sit in Iowa with that thing and take out president Ahmmanutjob in Iran!


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Jan 9, 2008)

Gnomey said:


> As far as I know it is a real pic



You just know that the 'Captains Speaking' in each cockpit were metaphorically wearing leather sheepskin flying jackets or Bone Domes (depending on age!), and mentally singing Dambusters or 633 Sqn and musing “Wide battle, wide battle – GO!” to themselves!

Great picture! (the like of which will never be seen again – *sniff*)


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 9, 2008)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> You just know that the 'Captains Speaking' in each cockpit were metaphorically wearing leather sheepskin flying jackets or Bone Domes (depending on age!), and mentally singing Dambusters or 633 Sqn and musing “Wide battle, wide battle – GO!” to themselves!
> 
> Great picture! (the like of which will never be seen again – *sniff*)



Yeah it is a great shame, would of loved to have had the opportunity to fly on her.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2008)

The BIG Sigma was just released for sale. It's 36 lbs (15.7kg). I think it's best to get a golf cart and set up a turret mount on the golf cart for that!  This is a humungous lens 200-500 at F2.8!






Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 EX DG: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Heinz (Jan 31, 2008)

Thats crazy!


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2008)

I could imagine getting some stunning images out of it, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to carry it.


----------



## DBII (Jan 31, 2008)

Sherpa not included.

DBII


----------



## ccheese (Jan 31, 2008)

... and the price is ???? 

(more than I paid for my house, I betcha !)

Charles


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2008)

Well, that's the funny part. That was conspicuously omitted from the press release. I haven't heard the street price yet.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 31, 2008)

That has longer range than a bl**dy radar....


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

Betcha I could count Lucky's ear hairs from my hovel here in Jersey. Is something like that really needed?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2008)

Actually, I shoot with a 50-500mm, so it's the same focal length but at a higher f-stop, so it's a much more manageable size, and weight.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

That seems reasonable. But don't the manufactureres know that not many photogs are gonna carry a 5 million lb lens? It just seems like a Guiness World book edition.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2008)

If I could afford one, I would have one for some cool shots, but that would be mounted on a tripod or some kind of mobile rig. If I could afford the lens, I could afford a way to get it some place without having to carry it.  It might be fun to rent one to play around with for a few days.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

Is something like that really needed? I mean I know nothing about cameras but that set you have seems to do what you want. Or is there something else that goes with that big lense, i.e., clearer pics, better focus, etc.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2008)

The big difference is the F-stop number. The lower the number, the more light it lets into the sensor. That means sharper images. You will see that at a lot of sporting events and air shows, very big lenses. They are typically 500-600mm focal lengths at f2.8. The one I have is F4.0. For most applications, it's fine if you know how to take advantage of it. F2.8 is very forgiving and does make for some incredible pictures.

In this case though 200-500mm _zoom _at F2.8 is a bit overkill. Most f2.8 lenses are either a smaller zoom range, or they are prime lenses, meaning no zoom, a fixed focal length. Prime lenses also have much sharper images because of the fact they don't have to tune lens glass to sweep through a range of focal lengths. They are dialed in perfect for the size.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

So there really is no reason or purpose for a zoom f2.8 except as a "Look what I have " factor. Kinda like a pink Lamborgini decked out in Hello Kitty.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 1, 2008)

I could see it for nature applications where you don't have to move much. For sports and action, forget it, way too unwieldy.



> Kinda like a pink Lamborgini decked out in Hello Kitty.


Now *that *would just be wrong!


----------



## Njaco (Feb 1, 2008)

Check Dan's last pic in his Misellanoues debris thread!


----------

