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


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.

[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.

[Tim]

That lens isn't a currentlens

[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.

[Daniel Browning]

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

[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.)