Thank GOD I am not a leica user.....

[gandolfi]

..otherwise I would have to consider this.... (after a win in a lottery that is..) :munch:

Dead Link Removed

 

[flatulent1]

Estimated 50-75k EUR... Not terribly extravagant for a 90mm f/1 ...

 

[benjiboy]

Why would the U.S Navy need a lens like this ?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since WHEN has the US NAVY ever needed to qualify/quantify its "wants"? Since WHEN did the US Navy EVER need to "justify" them? ALWAYS!! BUT... since WHEN did US citizens ever DEMAND that??

 

[Helinophoto]

It's probably soft wide open, so you're better off with a modern lens anyway.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Since WHEN has the US NAVY ever needed to qualify/quantify its "wants"? Since WHEN did the US Navy EVER need to "justify" them? ALWAYS!! BUT... since WHEN did US citizens ever DEMAND that??

A gazilion dollars for a lens? So what? The American tax-payers are buying it and they won't bitch about it... or at least.. there will be no significant repercussions.........

ETA: "Wide-Open" is in reference to American tax-payer orifices.

 

[EASmithV]

It doesn't look like you can even focus, it's girth covers the rangefinder patch window

 

[perkeleellinen]

High reserve on this also: Dead Link Removed

 

[Mark_S]

I recently went to a presentation by Canon talking about their new EOSC300 camera. This is a new camera (both still and moving picture, digital, handheld), the camera itself is $16K, and they have made lens selection easy by making all of the zoom lenses at the same price - $45K each. This is for a piece of glass with no collector value, no cult status, just a lens.

A unique, collector type cult lens should be worth much more!

 

[MDR]

Kinda defies the whole Leica stealth and portability thing. The lens probably weights three times as much as the camera.

Emil/Gandolfi if you're really interested in acquiring such lenses there are some super high speed X-ray lenses that probably can adaptes to Leica mount and cost a lot less.
It might only be a 65mm lens but it also only costs 290 Euros http://www.leicashop.com/vintage/oude-delft-6510-rayxar-p-5482.html. Or a 90mm lens for a mere 499 $ on the bay http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rayxar-OUDE...-Optical-Ocular-X-Ray-Lens-Unit-/200746172451. Thom A from the Rangefinderforum has adapted a Leitz 1.0/90 X-Ray lens for a picker to m mount the lens goes for about 800 $ on ebay. 75 000 is probably the Leicashop/Westlicht Bonus.

Benjiboy they probably need the lens for surveillance of Radar screens or a General's wife.

Dominik

 

[pstake]

Who among us has the courage to actually use a lens that costs $50 / $75k?

I'd be so nervous that camera shake would be a real problem.

Then again, at F1, I'd have some fast shutter speeds available, so...

Sure is purdy, though.

 

[cliveh]

I'm a Leica user, but even if I won the lottery I would have no need of a lens like that.

 

[segedi]

This will go perfectly with my NEX-5n. I just need two tickets. Winning Lotto and to Viena.

 

[brucemuir]

what is the top shutter speed of an M?
Guess it would be ND time outdoors.

 

[lxdude]

ETA: "Wide-Open" is in reference to American tax-payer orifices.

Well, it doesn't look to me like it would be soft.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well, it doesn't look to me like it would be soft.

Oh, it's VERY soft. We're Uncle Sam's worn-out bitches for sure.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can one see though the view finder?
Will the range finder work?
Is there a separate view finder?








I will stick with Hasselblad!

 

[IloveTLRs]

What, no LTM version?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Navy would have used it for aerial surveillance most likely - no focusing required, it would have always been shot at infinity. It would have been mounted to a fixed position aimed out a window. Probably also used for night-time surveillance. And compared to the optics used to photograph high resolution terrestrial images from space, that lens would probably have been cheap.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Navy would have used it for aerial surveillance most likely - no focusing required, it would have always been shot at infinity. It would have been mounted to a fixed position aimed out a window. Probably also used for night-time surveillance. And compared to the optics used to photograph high resolution terrestrial images from space, that lens would probably have been cheap.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

The Navy would have used it for aerial surveillance most likely - no focusing required, it would have always been shot at infinity. It would have been mounted to a fixed position aimed out a window. Probably also used for night-time surveillance. And compared to the optics used to photograph high resolution terrestrial images from space, that lens would probably have been cheap.

Cheap for a branch of government that I watched push perfectly good helicopters into the ocean to save deck space. The military probably taught budgeting to the NSA.

 

[daleeman]

They need it for "undercover" work when they "go to town" with the secret service on advanced visits

 

[Moopheus]

Cheap for a branch of government that I watched push perfectly good helicopters into the ocean to save deck space. The military probably taught budgeting to the NSA.

It should be noted that this is an auction price for a lens being sold as "collectible" 40+ years after original manufacture and purchase. This price very likely has no relation at all to the price paid by the navy.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I know darned well the US govt paid W-A-Y too much for such a specialty item... they always do.

 

[daleeman]

I know darned well the US govt paid W-A-Y too much for such a specialty item... they always do.

But it was GSA pricing from the Las Vegas conference.