Thank GOD I am not a leica user.....

[gandolfi]

..otherwise I would have to consider this.... (after a win in a lottery that is..) :munch:

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/11315158_elcan-190mm-ke-7a-sn-164-0001-c1970

[flatulent1]

Estimated 50-75k EUR... Not terribly extravagant for a 90mm f/1 ...

[benjiboy]

Why would the U.S Navy need a lens like this ?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since WHEN has the US NAVY ever needed to qualify/quantify its "wants"? Since WHEN did the US Navy EVER need to "justify" them? ALWAYS!! BUT... since WHEN did US citizens ever DEMAND that??

[Helinophoto]

It's probably soft wide open, so you're better off with a modern lens anyway.

:D

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since WHEN has the US NAVY ever needed to qualify/quantify its "wants"? Since WHEN did the US Navy EVER need to "justify" them? ALWAYS!! BUT... since WHEN did US citizens ever DEMAND that??

A gazilion dollars for a lens? So what? The American tax-payers are buying it and they won't bitch about it... or at least.. there will be no significant repercussions.........

ETA: "Wide-Open" is in reference to American tax-payer orifices.

[EASmithV]

It doesn't look like you can even focus, it's girth covers the rangefinder patch window

[perkeleellinen]

High reserve on this also: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/11314975_leica-0-series-sn-116-1923

[Mark_S]

I recently went to a presentation by Canon talking about their new EOSC300 camera. This is a new camera (both still and moving picture, digital, handheld), the camera itself is $16K, and they have made lens selection easy by making all of the zoom lenses at the same price - $45K each. This is for a piece of glass with no collector value, no cult status, just a lens.

A unique, collector type cult lens should be worth much more!

[MDR]

Kinda defies the whole Leica stealth and portability thing. The lens probably weights three times as much as the camera.

Emil/Gandolfi if you're really interested in acquiring such lenses there are some super high speed X-ray lenses that probably can adaptes to Leica mount and cost a lot less.
It might only be a 65mm lens but it also only costs 290 Euros http://www.leicashop.com/vintage/oude-delft-6510-rayxar-p-5482.html. Or a 90mm lens for a mere 499 $ on the bay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rayxar-OUDE-DELFT-E90-1-0-90mm-F1-0-Telescope-Optical-Ocular-X-Ray-Lens-Unit-/200746172451. Thom A from the Rangefinderforum has adapted a Leitz 1.0/90 X-Ray lens for a picker to m mount the lens goes for about 800 $ on ebay. 75 000 is probably the Leicashop/Westlicht Bonus.

Benjiboy they probably need the lens for surveillance of Radar screens or a General's wife.

Dominik

[pstake]

Who among us has the courage to actually use a lens that costs $50 / $75k?

I'd be so nervous that camera shake would be a real problem.

Then again, at F1, I'd have some fast shutter speeds available, so...

Sure is purdy, though.

[cliveh]

I'm a Leica user, but even if I won the lottery I would have no need of a lens like that.

[segedi]

This will go perfectly with my NEX-5n. I just need two tickets. Winning Lotto and to Viena.

[brucemuir]

what is the top shutter speed of an M?
Guess it would be ND time outdoors.

[lxdude]

ETA: "Wide-Open" is in reference to American tax-payer orifices.

Well, it doesn't look to me like it would be soft.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well, it doesn't look to me like it would be soft.

Oh, it's VERY soft. We're Uncle Sam's worn-out bitches for sure.

[Sirius Glass]

Can one see though the view finder?
Will the range finder work?
Is there a separate view finder?








I will stick with Hasselblad!

[IloveTLRs]

What, no LTM version?

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.