Wow, I had never seen that one before! It's weird - Canon makes a 14mm lens that has nearly that wide a view (114 degrees instead of 118, also rectlinear) but is a much more usable 2.8 aperture and doesn't have anywhere near that ridiculously large a front element....or anywhere near that ridiculously large a price tag! I mean it's pricey (the FDn version usually goes for over $1000) but it's still possible for a mere mortal to buy one and use it.
The Nikon lens I still lust after is the 6mm/2.8. But I've never had a spare $30,000 around to buy one :-(
I think it's obvious what waltereegho means - people who spend $38000 on a lens (in this case) don't do it because they know they will recuperate that money through its use, but because of (what they perceive as) prestige that comes with owning one.
I am sure there are people who will splurge that kind of silly money on a lens, and then actually use the it but they have to be in minority. It's simple - there are many more very rich collectors than very rich photographers. On top of that, some of those very rich photographers have become rich by actually being good photographers, which means they know how to value the equipment they use.
Last edited by OldBodyOldSoul; 01-03-2012 at 06:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: more than 30K