Now THIS is a big lens!

[evangilder]

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]

jeez! perving from a dsitance just became easier!

 

[Aussie1001]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

Is that for up close and real personal

 

[evangilder]

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]

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]

2008 Ford Mustang???

 

[lesofprimus]

Probably pretty damn close Lucky...

 

[Becca]

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

 

[evangilder]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ccheese]

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]

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]

Smart man....

 

[Micdrow]

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]

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