[shoplink 31950 ebay]
[/shoplink]
The A7 attached on the rare lens (via Photoshop). Thanks Jose
Sometimes you really find some crazy stuff on eBay. This is a very rare Full Frame 2,000mm f/11 lens you can use with adapter on your E-mount camera. It sells for US $32,777.00 via luxury stuff seller [shoplink 31950 ebay]Breguet Camera on eBay (Click here to see all pics and details fo the lens)[/shoplink].
If you really own such kind of rare lenses feel free to send me some pics of them with a Sony cam attached 🙂
[shoplink 31950 ebay]
[/shoplink]
[shoplink 31950 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Found via PetaPixel and TheDigitalPicture.
68 Responses
Wait! this lens is much smaller than a decent NO- mirror 2000mm/ f 11 lens (-;
Haha, that’s basically a telescope. I stick my A7 on my telescope all the time… although it didn’t cost that much 🙂
The original tripod that goes with it weighs more and is more impressive.
No bulky tripod needed, with IBIS you should be able to go handheld no problem.
For a minute I thought we would finally get a new Sony 85mm F1.2
Closeups of my cat never looked so good!
Guys, in all honesty, this is over rated. You can accomplish same and better with a Celestron 1100HD and the standard T adapter which mounts any camera to the scope. I have such a beast. Furthermore it is flat field apo chromatic yielding true separation of objects even at the far edges. And guess what, it is 2800mm f/9.975 and the tube assembly is about $3200.00 or about 4300.00 with the tripod and CGEM mount for tracking. Here is my setup without the camera mounted on it. http://www.astrophotography.photos/gallery/4/U4I1401553443.SEQ.1.jpg
Nice setup. Why on Earth would somebody spend that kind of money on a reflex lens?
Have you checked the prices of an APO refractor with the same spec and quality lately?
Awesome, but what is that thing in the back, home-made tele or something else ?
Too bad out here the sky isn’t clear of city lights anywhere.
Nice. How big is the coverage?
It covers 135, check it out online, it’s easy… Please stop spamming.
“Check it out online”? “Spamming”?
Bet you would have never made it to the internet if it weren’t for tech companies dumbing down IT products.
And no… spec sheets never indicate the correct coverage. Stop being a noob.
nice combo and I am sure you get great results with them. but this lens is more of a collectors item that was built between 1969-1971, can you show us a telescope from that era that is better and cheaper?
is that a mirror lens? must be for people who take photos of the stars.
Another proof that mirrorless cameras are just gadgets for noobs. Look how unbalanced this system is. Put the DSLR on the back, so that it wouldn’t look ridiculous!
Another prrof that compact and midrange cars are just gadgets for noobs. Put full size SUVs on the streets so that it wouldn’t look ridiculous!
🙂
I planned on sounding sarcastic, but it seems that some upvoters didn’t realize that… 🙂
Another proof that Sheldon Cooper is a real person and is lurking in the comment sections of sonyalpharumors.
You gotta use a few more grains of IQ to be funny on the net.
There’s nothing more noob than assuming someone will hand hold this. I bet the biggest lens you’ve held in real life is some dude’s 70-200.
Whooooshhhhhh!
Yup. Right over his head.
now, by looking at it, a7II still has small grip and handling would be compromised /s
And maximal focal length for IBIS to work is 1000mm.
We will have to saw it in half. The good thing is, then we will have two !
try and make a selfie with that !!! … if you can manage, you’ll really look a star though 😉
homemade 2000mm F5 here, A7 via T-ring adapter 🙂
Dafuq is this?
Woah looks awesome!!! 😀
Gosh! Going to post this 🙂
It s supposed to be an homenade telescope before a lens, no? OK i’m envious!!! Do u do great astrophito with that monster…lens;)?
Great astrophoto? Depends on conditions, we tend to go up to the mountains to get above clouds. Images are sharp with the little bit of correctable vignetting. Earth tracker is included, so longer exposures are possible.
Do you have a blog or site to show your pics yet?
Definitely useful if you live near college dorm showers 😛
Interesting “hard-ware”. 🙂
Guess such lenses are special needs for special users.
A popular main stream photo magazine in GER, the “Chip Foto Video” showed a top 10 of extraordinary lenses in one of its previous editions. One of the lenses shown was a 1700/f4 Zeiss lens that a not named wildlife photograph ordered custom made. This is/was a real tele prime.
We’ve all seen plenty of pics of it.
Thanks again for your insights…
Some wild pricing differences around. Here’s a Craigslist entry for the same lens in London at £1899, or less than a tenth of the price (assuming it’s not a scam of some sort).
http://london.craigslist.co.uk/pho/4789696009.html
That seems like a piece of crap. A Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 with an extender would be much more versatile and do much better at the same price. Alternatively, as many people have pointed out, simple telescopes will be almost identical — maybe slightly better — for 1/10th the price, unless you need macro.
You would need a 4x extender to get to the same focal length and aperture 😉
You can mount a Nikon 1 on it
and what that gives you? a crappy sensor using a small part of the image circle which is going to be a low resolution.
a smaller sensor with higher pixel density always makes the best teleconverter.
Moreover f/11 is useless for deepsky astrophoto because u ll need a focal reducer to get lower than f/5.6… So a 32000$ lens just to watch planetes is nonsense
Do you think they made it bigger to keep it warm? It’s difficult to find reflectors with this aperture/fov/coverage combo. Also I’m sure this is optimised for relatively closer distances.
But yes… big price tags of some of these obscure optics are largely due to their rarity.
It’s actually very easy to find 2000 / F11 telescopes… Nearly as easy as finding a pointless comment written by you.
rofl… focal length and aperture doesn’t need to have nothing to do with coverage.
Learn the subject or just stick to asking questions.
Stop spamming! If I remember correctly your the one who claimed to have 2000 camera bodies on your Flickr right? Shouldn’t you be busy working on those high school grade photos you actually had the ego to link to? No? K, keep pretending you have an optical engineering degree. But seriously stop spamming, no one cares about what you read online.
Are you saying the reason behind your frustration in not understanding what i said in my comment earlier is because i have a lot of cameras and ive left you none to buy? ROFLLL
Bet your entire compound’s collective wisdom isn’t enough to figure out what i do. “Spam”? Rofl if it weren’t for dumbed down computers, people like you wouldn’t even get on the internet. Crawl back inside and make friends with a plant… something of your own level of intelligence LOL
? No. The reason behind my frustration with You is that you can not take photos for $h$t and go around spamming BS. You know…I wouldn’t even talk to someone like you in real life right? Not sure why I talk to teens online. Forget it, Spam away!
You don’t have the brain functioning to comprehend a fraction of what i do. Turn your helmet back forwards and march back to the care center. You’re obviously lost in the wrong forum. This is for people who understand cameras… and you’re not one.
for a 1969 lens which is considered a unicorn in our days they can put any price on it.
years gone by and mirror lenses/ telescopes became cheaper and better than this lens, but at the time what lens or telescope you can find that is better and cheaper than this one?
I’m glad to A7II has IBIS.
But I don’t think it has a 2000mm custom IBIS setting in the menu. Time for a firmware update 😉
Damn, first I thought it was a water heater!
Nice portrait lens.
I have a present under my tree that looks exactly like that. Time to update my tripod.
can anyone find some uncropped images from this lens? im just curious as to what it looks like. i spent 2 minutes searching and couldnt come up with anything.
It’ll look like any other good mirror lens photo… only narrower. Yes… there are such things as good mirror lenses… they’re not the stuff people buy for $100 off ebay and complain about 🙂
Typical armchair expert comment
I have a lot of experience with mirror lenses. Personally own quite a few different ones.
That thing must weight at least 100 lbs.
This must have been the inspiration for the trashcan design of the new Mac Pro.
The world is full of telescopes, this is just severely overpriced.
And by the way, it would not be smaller if it filled a smaller image circle.
This picture is missing the 3x teleconverter.
Is this a macro lens?
Such an amazing telescope