PDA

View Full Version : Thank GOD I am not a leica user.....



Pages : 1 [2]

semi-ambivalent
04-26-2012, 10:51 PM
The Navy would have used it for aerial surveillance most likely - no focusing required, it would have always been shot at infinity. It would have been mounted to a fixed position aimed out a window. Probably also used for night-time surveillance. And compared to the optics used to photograph high resolution terrestrial images from space, that lens would probably have been cheap.

Cheap for a branch of government that I watched push perfectly good helicopters into the ocean to save deck space. The military probably taught budgeting to the NSA.

daleeman
04-27-2012, 07:45 AM
They need it for "undercover" work when they "go to town" with the secret service on advanced visits

Moopheus
04-27-2012, 12:08 PM
Cheap for a branch of government that I watched push perfectly good helicopters into the ocean to save deck space. The military probably taught budgeting to the NSA.

It should be noted that this is an auction price for a lens being sold as "collectible" 40+ years after original manufacture and purchase. This price very likely has no relation at all to the price paid by the navy.

Old-N-Feeble
04-27-2012, 12:58 PM
I know darned well the US govt paid W-A-Y too much for such a specialty item... they always do. ;)

daleeman
04-27-2012, 02:07 PM
I know darned well the US govt paid W-A-Y too much for such a specialty item... they always do. ;)

But it was GSA pricing from the Las Vegas conference.

Old-N-Feeble
04-27-2012, 02:22 PM
But it was GSA pricing from the Las Vegas conference.

LOL!! RIGHT!!

Moopheus
04-27-2012, 02:38 PM
I know darned well the US govt paid W-A-Y too much for such a specialty item... they always do. ;)

Yeah, who needs actual facts? This is the internet!

Old-N-Feeble
04-27-2012, 02:58 PM
Yeah, who needs actual facts? This is the internet!

I've worked for Uncle Sam for a long time and I've seen FAR too many rapings of the American taxpayer to cave in. I can't be specific without risk. I'm sure others here will agree.

Sirius Glass
04-27-2012, 05:21 PM
Cheap for a branch of government that I watched push perfectly good helicopters into the ocean to save deck space. The military probably taught budgeting to the NSA.

You meant GSA?

puderse
05-02-2012, 09:29 AM
When I was a GI photographer they gave me, for official use only and I had to give it back, a nifty M3 kit with three lenses in a Halliburton case! I couldn't believe it, not even a deposit required.

PanaDP
09-05-2012, 03:33 PM
I don't see why you'd want a 90mm f1 lens on a rangefinder, anyway. With that little depth of field, I want an SLR so I can see if I'm sharp or not. If you stop it down enough to be sure the rangefinder will have you sharp, you might as well get a cheaper lens.

E. von Hoegh
09-05-2012, 03:45 PM
I don't see why you'd want a 90mm f1 lens on a rangefinder, anyway. With that little depth of field, I want an SLR so I can see if I'm sharp or not. If you stop it down enough to be sure the rangefinder will have you sharp, you might as well get a cheaper lens.

It's a Leica. If the rangefinder says it's in focus, it's in focus.No need to stop down.

PanaDP
09-05-2012, 05:23 PM
It's a Leica. If the rangefinder says it's in focus, it's in focus.No need to stop down.

I'd have to see it to believe it with a 90mm at f1. I pull focus for a living and that's not much to work with unless you're doing what the navy probably was and focusing 30 feet and further a lot. At 12 feet if a person's eyes are sharp, their ears aren't. At 7 feet, a head and shoulders portrait length, you get 2" total depth of field. It sounds like a very, very expensive way to miss focus a lot to me.

Mustafa Umut Sarac
09-07-2012, 03:17 PM
I have 111mm f:1.5 Ektar Fluoride lens , I bought for 25 cents.

m1tch
11-27-2012, 04:11 AM
Wow, you are basically buying a lens with a camera attached :D