1700mm, 256kg. That’d be the
Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 4/1700.
Oh my goodness gracious.
By Tim Bray.
The opinions expressed here
are my own, and no other party
necessarily agrees with them.
A full disclosure of my
professional interests is
on the author page.
I’m on Mastodon!
Comment feed for ongoing:
From: Ryan Cousineau (Oct 02 2006, at 21:25)
That's quite a lens. I'm reminded, though, of Mike Johnston's "Uses and Applications of 35mm lenses." http://photo.net/mjohnston/column57/
"1200mm: no known uses"
Okay, yes, if I'm doing my calculations correctly, this 1400mm lens would have the coverage of a 700 on a 35mm camera, but then I suppose the real limitations of this wonder of lens-grinding are its price and size.
From: Carlos (Oct 03 2006, at 17:17)
This is offtopic, but...
From: Josh Peters (Oct 03 2006, at 20:58)
That thing is a torpedo! Is it used for doing macro photos of ants three miles away?
From: Hanan Cohen (Oct 04 2006, at 13:00)
They don't say a word about the tripod, or whatever carries it.
Since it's designed for taking wildlife photography, it must be mounted on a vehicle. But you cannot drive when the lens is mounted because of the shaking and vibrations, so it must be kept in a box and then mounted before taking the photos. Hence, a need for a small crane or something.
Life is too complicated!
From: Nobody Nowhere (Oct 04 2006, at 16:27)
Quick! Buy some v1agr@!
(I just want to see the anti-spam questions)
From: Ed Davies (Oct 06 2006, at 04:10)
Silly size of lens, but quite a reasonable telescope. Actually, the difference between a camera lens and a normal refracting telescope (without the eyepiece) is more a matter of mind-set than optics.