the MOTHER OF ALL LENSES

[Lilikoi the cat]

Holy Hernia Batman
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_5_6L.html

[Abel]

more info and examples:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp

they say it weighs around 40lbs

[Killjoy]

And it has loops for a neckstrap.
SOMEbody had a sense of humor when they designed that sucker.

[Abel]

ha! no joke

[BrassPremier]

What sort of application would you use it for? Astronomy? Spying?

[Killjoy]

Originally Posted by BrassPremier

What sort of application would you use it for? Astronomy? Spying?

Bragging rights.

There were only about 20 of these made. They were special order, and hand made.
I would imagine that some paparazzi would use it to get photos of stars from long distances.
You know those photos, where the stars are on the beach topless?
So yeah, spying.

As for astrophotography, I could spend a heck of a lot less, on a 12" LX 200 Meade telescope with star drive and a built in GPS so that it you don't even have to align the sucker.
And still have enough left over to buy a Porsche Cayenne to drive it around in.

[Abel]

i read something like there were only 20 in existence and half of them canon cant say who own them so im sure some sort of government agencies etc. hehe

[Abel]

alan beat me to the punch!

[Bigguy]

What? No IS?

[Killjoy]

Originally Posted by Bigguy

What? No IS?

What do you want for your $99,000?

Edit: Yes, that's the price for them used.

[Lilikoi the cat]

Alan, that was for the previous one that B&H sold.
This one is going for a trifle more.
$120k
Lucky the economy is bad.
Why go with the Meade when you can still get the Cayenne and a Takahashi with better IQ

[Killjoy]

Originally Posted by Lilikoi the cat

Alan, that was for the previous one that B&H sold.
This one is going for a trifle more.
$120k

YIKES

Why go with the Meade when you can still get the Cayenne and a Takahashi with better IQ

Several reasons.
1) I can buy three Meade's for the price of one Takahashi
2) The aperture on the Meade is way better than the Takahashi (f/6.3 vs f12.4) and that comes in pretty handy when you are doing long exposures.
3) I've always wanted a Meade. :w00t:

Edit: I take that back. When comparing the Schmidt Cassgrain to the Schmidt Cassgrain, the 16" Meade is $15,000 and the Takahashi is $60,000. So I can buy FOUR Meade's to the one Takahashi.
However, I see that with more money and adapters, you can do some conversions to the Takahashi and make it f/3.9
THAT would be sweet for night sky photography.

[Lilikoi the cat]

Alan, I don't think the F numbers have to do with aperture. It is the ratio of diameter of the prime to the focal point. I think the shorter F numbers are good for wide field and larger good for planetary..
I am digging this out of my brain from HS.
I would also like to get a Meade because I can't afford a good refractor.
I did go see the 200" Palomar, now that is aperture!

[Killjoy]

Hmm.
You can get the Meade in an f/10 or an f/6.3
They strongly suggest that you get the 6.3 if you are doing astro-photography.

[Lilikoi the cat]

" "Focal ratio" is the ratio of the instrument's focal length to its aperture. It's found by dividing focal length by objective diameter. A telescope with a mirror of 8 inches across and a focal length of 48 inches has a focal ratio of f/6. (Notice that you can also find a telescope's focal length by multiplying focal ratio by aperture.)

As implied in our slide-projector analogy above, though a long focal-length telescope produces a large image at focus, it will also be fainter because the long focal path spreads out the light more.

Long focal lengths are considered to be in the f/9 or greater range. A telescope of a given diameter coupled with a short focal length, say a 3.5-inch (8.9-centimeter) f/5.6 (focal length 19.6 inches, or 49.8 centimeters), produces bright images but wide fields.

This is fine for observing large deep-sky objects and star fields, but if you also want to observe planets and double stars, you're going to want a slightly longer focal length."
Blatantly copied from:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...escope_II.html
So the F number is misleading to photographers because the actual diameter of the optical component is the f number we are used to thinking of.
Small F number equals a wide field of view and bright image. Larger F number will produce a larger image but will not be as bright.
Wow, I do still remember stuff from High School
I checked... I still don't have the $120k