Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by gr82bart, Mar 17, 2007.
When I saw the title, I was going to post this link and say something smart like "oh yeah? have a look at this one". After all, how big could a 35mm lens be right?
I think I'll just wave the white flag ... you win
Does it come with a case?
That's it. I'm selling all my gear. This is the reason to own Canon. Finally a lens that is right for everyone. GRIN.
That's why I hate 35mm. It's too big and heavy. I want one of those light 11x14 cameras.
'This is the only telephoto lens in the world capable of taking photographs of objects 18 to 32 miles away.'
What rot! My Takumar 200mm was taking photographs of an object over 220,000 miles from the camera just a few weeks ago.
Do they make that in a wide angle version?
Yes, you have to climb into it through a manhole and it has a spherical view. The camera is mounted on a computerized gimbal and an entire roll of film is used during a single exposure. No means of enlarging the resulting negative yet exists.
What, no tripod mount?
Yep, military issue jeep, just remove the machine gun...
That's nothing. This "mother" beats your "mother". Granted, it's intended for medium format.
OK, I can see why you guys like this lens! :rolleyes:
But as a woman, I don't feel the need for that kind of "display."
I thought it looked more like the father of all lenses...
Indeed, the strange description of this unique lens as capable of taking pics of objects distant 18-32 miles away is mind boggling. On my wall I have a picture of mountains distant more than 50 miles, taken with a large format camera and the 800mm Nikon. You can see details such as the difference between a glacier and snow, the individual peak's structure etc. Nothing impedes me to put a 35mm camera to this lens with an appropriate adapter and take just a smaller part of the scene with the same detail. What the heck is the mysterious distance between 18-32 miles away?
And I have photos of the Andromeda Galaxy taken with a 50mm lens on my Minolta XD-5 camera... and the galaxy is only 2.5 million light years away.
The reason why GUYS like this lens has nothing to do with display...it has to do with not having to get up off our butts and move closer to take a picture.
If it had been left up to women, televisions still wouldn't have remote controls.
I have to admit when I first read the specs of this lens the thought 'A car would be cheaper for getting close enough to photograph of something 18 to 32 miles away', did cross my mind.
you didn't really have to wait for Canon to make this lens - you always could have bought a Celestron 14 telescope and a T-mount adapter. Then when you weren't using it as a lens, you'd have an awesome telescope to boot .
If this lens was designed so you can photograph something 18-32 miles away, why focus down to 120 metres? Maybe there's a macro switch we can't see.
I think I'll leave it to the guys who think they need to compensate.
18 to 26 miles? What about moisture and haze? Does this lens also improve the composition.
Although the little lens is tempting, in the time since Art has made its availability known I have gone over my most recent and near past work and output. In only two instances have I even used my 35 mm 70--210 zoom and only 3 times have I used the 105...so it would probably just sit on a shelf for days on end and not get used. Sure is not my intention to discourage others but after much prayer and meditation, I am going to have to pass at this time. In any case, thanks Art for the update and keep the info flow coming.