Expensive Lenses

Trail Images · May 26, 2015

Not sure if this was posted on the site yet, if so feel free to remove it moderator.

Just a list of the most expensive lenses..... Pricy Glass

Sirius Glass · May 26, 2015

Nothing beats a good piece of glass.

Dali · May 26, 2015

I prefer the "least expensive lens" thread, it is more fun...

ic-racer · May 26, 2015

Good thing I don't use telephoto lenses. The "Horseman" lens is not a Horseman or Topcor, it is a Rodenstock HR Digaron-S. I'd certainly not consider this any reputable list; why is it that people think that just because they post something on the internet they don't need references?

Richard S. (rich815) · May 26, 2015

ic-racer said:
....why is it that people think that just because they post something on the internet they don't need references?

People who think it's a good idea to called themselves "The Phoblographer".

summicron1 · May 27, 2015

$2 million for that Leitz ... anyone got evidence they sold one?

Jesper · May 27, 2015

I would expect to find the Nikkor 300/2.0 on the list. They have the 6mm so it cannot be because they only list current lenses. Maybe the Nikkor 13mm as well

Dan Fromm · May 27, 2015

Hmm. My late friend Charlie Barringer's Super-Q Gigantar and Barry Lyndon lens sold at auction for Euros 90,000 and 60,000 respectively. To which we should add a 20% buyer's premium. The person who compiled the list seems not to be aware of Westlicht.

Trail Images · May 27, 2015

The person who compiled the list seems not to be aware of Westlicht.

Yes, I suspect there were several missing from the list. I just was amazed at how costly the ones on the list were. My budget is more in the hundred dollar world.....

benjiboy · May 27, 2015

All these lenses would be as much use to me personally as a chocolate tea pot.

Old-N-Feeble · May 27, 2015

Meh... I'd sell 'em all and spend the money on booze and women.

benjiboy · May 27, 2015

Old-N-Feeble said:
Meh... I'd sell 'em all and spend the money on booze and women.

Yea and what we have left we'll waste.

EdSawyer · May 27, 2015

"Super-Q Gigantar" and that wasn't even a real lens! LOL

RalphLambrecht · May 27, 2015

summicron1 said:
$2 million for that Leitz ... anyone got evidence they sold one?

I'm sure one of the rich doctors will have bought one

Old-N-Feeble · May 27, 2015

RalphLambrecht said:
I'm sure one of the rich doctors will have bought one

Yeah, and write it off his taxes as a medical imaging device then take the depreciation too. By the time his CPA is done with it the doc will have bought it for the cost of a McDonald's Quarter Pounder With Cheese.

Dali · May 27, 2015

summicron1 said:
$2 million for that Leitz ... anyone got evidence they sold one?

Da Vinci had one.

perkeleellinen · May 27, 2015

I always wanted to try that 6mm Nikon; I never will at that price though.

MartinCrabtree · May 27, 2015

I'd like to have the Nikon 13MM. You could actually use it to take photos.

fotch · May 27, 2015

So, who are these rich photographers that buy these? Zero? These must be custom built extremely low production lens used by US Government, the only ones with money to burn. :confused:

benjiboy · May 27, 2015

How much actual use would these lenses be to anyone ?

Trail Images · May 27, 2015

How much actual use would these lenses be to anyone ?

In the practical world, not much I would think. In the non-practical world, probably the same......

Dan Fromm · May 27, 2015

benjiboy said:
How much actual use would these lenses be to anyone ?

Well, Charlie's Super-Q Gigantar was a colossal joke, not a lens to be used. f/0.33 is impossible in air. The Barry Lyndon lens was used for very low light cinematography. There's a scene in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon that's lit by one (1) candle. f/0.7 was useful then and there. Necessary, even.

I don't think the link mentioned the monster 1700/4 lens Zeiss made to fit a Hasselblad owned by a ruler of one of the emirates. He was an avid wildlife photographer, had the funds to buy a very expensive one-off and a vehicle to transport it.

Ben, isn't it interesting that its often the poor who support sumptuary laws?

Fotch, still photographers have rather strange concepts of expensive. When Arri introduced their 535 35 mm cine camera the price was $250,000. Their market was rental houses, not studios or directors of photography. The better grade of lenses to fit cine cameras (from Cooke, Panavision, Zeiss, ...) are unbelievably expensive. Again, the real market is rental houses. I've seen po' folks toting Bigmas and monster Canon lenses in the Everglades. Keen wildlife photographers. I don't watch TV much, watch football on TV even less, but every once in a while I watch a game with my son-in-law. Lotsa huge expensive lenses on the sidelines. I b'lieve they pay for themselves.

benjiboy · May 27, 2015

Ben, isn't it interesting that its often the poor who support sumptuary laws?

Dan, you don't have to be poor not to support excesses, because to 99.9% of photographers for their cost these optics are about as much use as a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 18, 2015

Dali said:
I prefer the "least expensive lens" thread, it is more fun...

But that's easyinhole'abberation free and dirt cheap

RalphLambrecht · Jun 18, 2015

ic-racer said:
Good thing I don't use telephoto lenses. The "Horseman" lens is not a Horseman or Topcor, it is a Rodenstock HR Digaron-S. I'd certainly not consider this any reputable list; why is it that people think that just because they post something on the internet they don't need references?

because it's a conversation among friends

Expensive Lenses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency