Why does this cost $25,000?

usayit · Jun 4, 2008

Garbz said:
Pffft. It may be the fattest ugliest lens, but it's not the longest. 1700mm is far more practical than 500mm.

Nikkor 1200mm - 1700mm f/5.6-8

Actually come to think of it didn't canon have something absolutely ridiculous too?

Garbz... thats not a nikkor...

[EDIT]
I take that back... It might be... It looks just like the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 lens painted black. NOTE: it is attached to a Canon body. heheh lol

Notice the similarity in the pic below.

http://www.e-fotografija.com/markII/1200mm.jpg

I swear it is a Canon 1200mm... but I could be wrong... the more I look at it the more it looks like a the Canon 1200mm especially since it is attache to a 1 series body.

I have a friend that collects wrist watches... can you imagine spending a few million on a watch?

Garbz · Jun 4, 2008

Yeah it was converted to canon. http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/unleashing-the-beast/ But it's definitely a Nikkor AI-P lens.

usayit · Jun 4, 2008

Wow... the first time I seen it. That photo must drive Nikon versus Canon finatics nuts.

TamiyaGuy · Jun 4, 2008

I take it you'll need to buy a new house to hold one of those.

Or just build another garage.

I read the Ken Rockwell page on this lens, and as much as I know the people on TPF hate him, it did teach me a couple of things. For instance, there isn't a classic zoom ring on the Sigma; it's more like a compact's zoom where you press buttons and it slowly zooms in and out, secondly, it really is a "hey, look at me!" lens. If you can think of a practical use for it (where you'll actually be able to hold it, mind), then I'd like to hear it. And thirdly, it weighs approximately as much as Scotland.

tim.bennett · Jun 4, 2008

Can you imagine getting this through security at the airport?

jakedoza · Jun 4, 2008

geez.. 2nd mortgage on the house for the lense... need another tripod too..

maytay20 · Jun 4, 2008

Holy cow I just bought a house worth 2 of those lenses. LOL

schumionbike · Jun 4, 2008

did anyone notice that the len weight 35 lbs??? I think you need to order a scooter along with it.

icassell · Jun 9, 2008

Why buy a cheap third-party lens when you can buy a real Canon for only $100K?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp

shivaswrath · Jun 9, 2008

caspertodd said:
What a great lens for the zoo! :lmao:

Here is a pic of it attached to a camera body:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/sigma-lens.jpg

what a wimp, he's not shooting it hand held! tripod with the sigma bimga is just girley man. . . :lol:

swmocity · Jun 12, 2008

caspertodd said:
What a great lens for the zoo! :lmao:

Here is a pic of it attached to a camera body:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/sigma-lens.jpg

huge!!

Marnault · Jun 17, 2008

A lens that is F2.8 at 500mm requires massive glass. To figure out the size of the aperture, divide the focal length by the maximum F stop. For this lens it has a 179mm apature, which is about 7". Glass elements that big are very expensive and very difficult to make. For example the 70-200 F2.8 only has a aperture of 71mm, and even the 400mm F2.8 is 143mm.

This is one of the main reasons it commands this price. The second being that it is the only lens out there that has these specs so it can command a premium price.