300mm f/2!

[Fast Glass]

Here is worlds fastest 300mm lens for 35mm photography http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm ("http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/index.htm)


Yeah it's a Nikon, but who cares just convert it. If anything it's way cool to drean about.[H]


By the way, has anyone seen what thislens costs?My guess is probably a LOT more than I have in bank account!


Cheers,


John.

[Jon Ruyle]

Impressive. I never heard of the thing.


I'm sure plenty of sports photographers would pay through the nose for one, so there must be a good reason it isn't being made now.

[Fast Glass]

Probably because of cost.

[Jon Ruyle]

The cost must be *very* high to keep people from wanting it.


Though I imagine it would be... 200mm f/2.8 a fraction the cost of 200mm f/2 (I know there are other reasons for this besides the extra stop). So with the already considerable expense of the 300 f/2.8, I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.

[Fast Glass]

It has the same apeture to focal length ratio as the 600mm f/4. Thats one huge 300mm prime! It must have incredible background blur.


John.

[Daniel Browning]

Looks like a neat lens. It would probably go well with the Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2 (not a typo):


http://blogfiles10.naver.net/data41/2009/6/5/137/erp_1476_fabula99.jpg

[Jon Ruyle]

Wow. There isn't much easily found info online about the lens. I tried to look it up and google just gave me the above post :)


I think that beats the 300 f/2 in terms of impressiveness of specs (iq may be another matter for all I know).


Not that I would *want* one or anything.


(Now please excuse me while I wipe the drool off my keyboard.)

[wickerprints]

I'm going to start a petition drive to get Canon or Zeiss to make a 200/1.0. Who wants to sign up? [:D]

[Fast Glass]

I'm going to start a petition drive to get Canon or Zeiss to make a 200/1.0. Who wants to sign up? /emoticons/emotion-2.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I still wantsome DOF![;)] Would be a cool lens no doubt.


John.

[Feanor]

I'm going to start a petition drive to get Canon or Zeiss to make a 200/1.0. Who wants to sign up? /emoticons/emotion-2.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





It would be the size and weight of an anti-aircraft gun though!! [:O]

[trosky]

hey jon, i beg to differ on that quote of yours "I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.".. lol


look at this.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/Mother7.jpg ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp)

[Tim]

That lens isn't a currentlens

[trosky]

not current but certainly the most expensive on the canon line ;)

[Fast Glass]

Looks like a neat lens. It would probably go well with the Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2 (not a typo):


http://blogfiles10.naver.net/data41/2009/6/5/137/erp_1476_fabula99.jpg
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






Could you repost that link to the lens, it seems to be broken and I never got to see it. I can't find it on google.


John.

[Daniel Browning]

You can read about it in the ARRI Master Prime PDF catalog from their web site, but there's no pictures. You might try searching Google Images for one.

[peety3]

hey jon, i beg to differ on that quote of yours "I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.".. lol
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





300 f/2 indicates a 150mm effective aperture. The 1200mm f/5.6 indicates a 215mm effective aperture. Let's look at the current white lenses:


200/2 = 100mm EA (200/2.8 = 72mm)


300/2.8 = 108mm EA (300/4 = 75mm)


400/2.8 = 143mm EA (400/4 = 100mm; 400/5.6 = 72mm)


500/4 = 125mm EA


600/4 = 150mm EA


800/5.6 = 143mm EA


300/2 would be pricey, but not in the league of the 1200/5.6; probably on the order of the 400/2.8 or a smidge above.

[Fast Glass]

Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2 (not a typo):






Actually it's a150mm f/1.3 and it's made in collaboration with Zeiss and ARRI.Here is the link http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank ("http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank).


There are 14 lenses all with f/1.3 apeture, from 14mm to 150mm. They are suposed tohave incredible image quality.


John.

[Daniel Browning]

Actually it's a150mm f/1.3





Only the "T-stop" is 1.3; the "F-stop" is 1.2.


A T-stop tells you the transmissivity of the lens. Some light is lost as it reflects off the lens elements, so a 20-element f/2.8 lens is much dimmer than a 7 element f/2.8 lens. If there were no loss in transmissivity, the t-stop and f-stop would be the same, but in practice they are slightly different.

[Fast Glass]

Thats interesting, I new that there was some light loss because of reflections in the lens. But I didn't know that they actually made a measurement for it.


Thanks for the correction,


John.

[wickerprints]

But those are cinematography lenses--they cast image circles that are significantly smaller than what is needed for a 36x24mm sensor. And even then, with the smaller format requirement, the 150/1.2 weighs 8.8 pounds! I think it's safe to say that if Canon ever made such a design for a full-frame 35mm camera, and included USM and IS, it would weigh a lot more....


It's easier to design lenses for smaller formats. You need less glass; more specifically, you can get away with smaller glass.

[Daniel Browning]

But those are cinematography lenses--they cast image circles that are significantly smaller than what is needed for a 36x24mm sensor. And even then, with the smaller format requirement, the 150/1.2 weighs 8.8 pounds!





Actually, at the 150mm focal length, you get a 36x24mm image circle for free. There would be no weight difference at all if it was designed for full frame, APS-C, or even a mobile phone or digicam. The only time there is a difference in weight is when the focal length starts getting close to twice the format diagonal (and it really gets bad at half the diagonal).






I think it's safe to say that if Canon ever made such a design for a full-frame 35mm camera, and included USM and IS, it would weigh a lot more....


The IS might add a half-pound, but USM wouldn't add anything. The manual focus features on cine lenses probably weigh a lot, though.