Nikkor 13/5.6

[perkeleellinen]

Recently a 13/5.6 lens was sourced for Grays of Westminster in London. According to this page it sold for £25,000! There are some nice pictures of it on the brokers site.

 

[John Austin]

Phuq!!!

 

[mikecnichols]

Wow!

That's about $38,749.50 for us Americans!

 

[dnjl]

It'll probably disappear in the closet of some collector, never to see the light of day again.

 

[benjiboy]

If I had one I'd be able to see my feet for t he first time in twenty years .

 

[frobozz]

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 :-(

Duncan

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

According to photosynthesis only 353 were made.

 

[Aja B]

It'll probably disappear in the closet of some collector, never to see the light of day again.

altereegho, I see comments like this frequently but am unsure of the basis and implication. Would you be so kind as to explain?

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

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.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Score of the year, if not the decade, for Bellamy. Cool story

 

[Sundowner]

I bet it makes an awesome paperweight, too. Just kind of top-heavy...

 

[tron_]

excuse me guys, allow me to count the zeros on my bank account...

$30k for a lens? ill take two. make that three, puggles my show terrier needs a new chew toy.

edit: but really the price is ridiculous but im not surprised to see it sell for so much because of its exclusivity and prestige. not my cup of tea (id rather have gear i am not afraid to use) but more power to the buyer if its truly what he wants.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's not an ideal design as it's retro focus, so it's not going to be cheap to make for that reason. I'd rather have a higher quality true wide angle lens for a rangefinder camera.

Ian

 

[lxdude]

Yep, the Voigtlaender 12/5.6 is dinky and about $750.

 

[keithwms]

16 elements in 12 groups, holy crap.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

I wonder how come there are no knockoffs from China. I'd get one for $19.99, especially if it had something like "Nikorr" or "Nykkor" engraved.

 

[keithwms]

I wonder how come there are no knockoffs from China. I'd get one for $19.99, especially if it had something like "Nikorr" or "Nykkor" engraved.

Pretty close...

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

Wow, what's that, it looks great? I'd love to put that thing in front of people's faces.

 

[keithwms]

Oh it's a $45 fisheye lomo..

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

I love it. I love the big eye on top too. 13/5.6 my butt

 

[semi-ambivalent]

It's not an ideal design as it's retro focus, so it's not going to be cheap to make for that reason. I'd rather have a higher quality true wide angle lens for a rangefinder camera.

Ian

I'm at work now and can't check my catalogs from the 80s but I don't think that's the case. It's rectilinear and mirror down. (Can't speak to the image quality; I traded mine for a Nikkorex because I couldn't find any curved filters.)

s-a

 

[semi-ambivalent]

It's not an ideal design as it's retro focus,

Ian

...but I don't think that's the case...

s-a

<Sigh> Thanks waiter, but I'll be having the crow tonight...

s-a

 

[benjiboy]

It strikes me if I owned a 15mm f5.6 lens how often would I be able to use it because if I used it much my picture would be pretty boring.

 

[Phalbert]

How old is the design of that lens compared to the 14mm Canon? How many years between the 2? Techniques have improved, reducing sizes and still gaining speed. I really wish we could see a few pics taken with it.

 

[benjiboy]

I can't see for practical photographic purposes regardless of the cost of these lenses they are of very limited use for everyday photography, unless you want most of pictures to be boring.