Printable View
Here is worlds fastest 300mm lens for 35mm photography 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.
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.
Probably because of cost.
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.
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.
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/...6_fabula99.jpg
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.)
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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
I still wantsome DOF![;)] Would be a cool lens no doubt.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
It would be the size and weight of an anti-aircraft gun though!! [:O]
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
That lens isn't a currentlens
not current but certainly the most expensive on the canon line ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trosky
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
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.
There are 14 lenses all with f/1.3 apeture, from 14mm to 150mm. They are suposed tohave incredible image quality.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
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.