Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)

[9VIII]

On the other rumors site they noted that a Nikon 300f2 went up for sale.

I thought, "oh neat, a 300f2 sounds like a great idea". Turns out the thing weighs 7,500 grams. That's almost twice as much as the 600f4ISII, and as much as two whole 300f2.8ISII+1Dx kits.
Things really have come a long way.

I can't wait for Canon or Nikon to put out a few more crazy projects like these again.

 

[chromophore]

It weighs that much in part because although the front element diameter is approximately the same as a 600/4, the curvature of the element has to be greater in order to achieve a higher refractive power corresponding to half the focal length. It also needs more correction for chromatic aberration, as well as correction for those Seidel aberrations that are f-number dependent.

The other reason why this lens is so heavy is because at the time of its design, optical glass production was not as sophisticated as it is today. The use of anomalous dispersion glass such as fluorite crown was not quite as common back then, meaning that achieving apochromatic performance involved more design complexity. We can also see this in the Canon EF 200/1.8L design, which uses UD glass instead of pure fluorite--the result was a very front-heavy lens.

Still another reason is simply the use of heavier materials for the barrel construction, as opposed to today's use of plastics and lightweight alloys (titanium and/or magnesium).

Canon designed on paper several optical formulas, one of which was a 200/1.4 and I believe a 280/1.8 or 300/1.8, if I recall correctly. They appeared to use a massive amount of glass, and I suspect this was the reason why they never saw commercial production. Nowadays, with the advent of IS and high-sensitivity digital imaging sensors, the major lens manufacturers see little if any reason to design ultrafast aperture lenses at any focal length, even though many photographers would still love to use them. Canon hasn't optically designed an f/1.2 lens for the 135 format since the EF 50/1.2L (the EF 85/1.2L II is optically identical to its predecessor); Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades. Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of. It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

 

[flowers]

Like chromophore said, some of it is just the engineering requirements for a lens with those specs and some of it is the heavier materials and earlier level of technology. Don't think that those lenses could easily be made much smaller today, that's in no way a given
Anything over 135mm around f/1.4 is going to weigh 2kg or more! If you're happy with f/2 you'll have an easier time with some lenses, but don't expect a 300/2 lens to be light!

 

[CarlTN]

It weighs that much in part because although the front element diameter is approximately the same as a 600/4, the curvature of the element has to be greater in order to achieve a higher refractive power corresponding to half the focal length. It also needs more correction for chromatic aberration, as well as correction for those Seidel aberrations that are f-number dependent.

The other reason why this lens is so heavy is because at the time of its design, optical glass production was not as sophisticated as it is today. The use of anomalous dispersion glass such as fluorite crown was not quite as common back then, meaning that achieving apochromatic performance involved more design complexity. We can also see this in the Canon EF 200/1.8L design, which uses UD glass instead of pure fluorite--the result was a very front-heavy lens.

Still another reason is simply the use of heavier materials for the barrel construction, as opposed to today's use of plastics and lightweight alloys (titanium and/or magnesium).

Canon designed on paper several optical formulas, one of which was a 200/1.4 and I believe a 280/1.8 or 300/1.8, if I recall correctly. They appeared to use a massive amount of glass, and I suspect this was the reason why they never saw commercial production. Nowadays, with the advent of IS and high-sensitivity digital imaging sensors, the major lens manufacturers see little if any reason to design ultrafast aperture lenses at any focal length, even though many photographers would still love to use them. Canon hasn't optically designed an f/1.2 lens for the 135 format since the EF 50/1.2L (the EF 85/1.2L II is optically identical to its predecessor); Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades. Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of. It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Interesting and informative post, thank you! Yes it's a shame these were never produced. I don't recall the term "Seidel aberration", but perhaps I've read it...I think on the lensrentals blog. From your take on it, it sounds like you think the current generation of f/1.2 lenses will be the last. I hope not. But it would make sense. It seems like most everyone likes a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, more than a faster aperture prime. I'm not one of these people...

 

[jrista]

It weighs that much in part because although the front element diameter is approximately the same as a 600/4, the curvature of the element has to be greater in order to achieve a higher refractive power corresponding to half the focal length. It also needs more correction for chromatic aberration, as well as correction for those Seidel aberrations that are f-number dependent.

The other reason why this lens is so heavy is because at the time of its design, optical glass production was not as sophisticated as it is today. The use of anomalous dispersion glass such as fluorite crown was not quite as common back then, meaning that achieving apochromatic performance involved more design complexity. We can also see this in the Canon EF 200/1.8L design, which uses UD glass instead of pure fluorite--the result was a very front-heavy lens.

Still another reason is simply the use of heavier materials for the barrel construction, as opposed to today's use of plastics and lightweight alloys (titanium and/or magnesium).

Canon designed on paper several optical formulas, one of which was a 200/1.4 and I believe a 280/1.8 or 300/1.8, if I recall correctly. They appeared to use a massive amount of glass, and I suspect this was the reason why they never saw commercial production. Nowadays, with the advent of IS and high-sensitivity digital imaging sensors, the major lens manufacturers see little if any reason to design ultrafast aperture lenses at any focal length, even though many photographers would still love to use them. Canon hasn't optically designed an f/1.2 lens for the 135 format since the EF 50/1.2L (the EF 85/1.2L II is optically identical to its predecessor); Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades. Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of. It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Interesting and informative post, thank you! Yes it's a shame these were never produced. I don't recall the term "Seidel aberration", but perhaps I've read it...I think on the lensrentals blog. From your take on it, it sounds like you think the current generation of f/1.2 lenses will be the last. I hope not. But it would make sense. It seems like most everyone likes a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, more than a faster aperture prime. I'm not one of these people...

Siedel aberrations are the five most well known aberrations that most photographers talk about. So, technically, you do know about them...you just didn't know that.

The Five Siedel Aberrations:

- Spherical Aberratin
- Astigmatism
- Distortion
- Coma
- Field Curvature

Coma and Astigmatism and possibly Field Curvature are maybe a little less known to most photographers. Certain groups would be more familiar with them. For example, coma is very well known amongst astrophotographers, and field curvature has an impact on peripheral field performance in astrophotography (the advent of flatter field optics like flat-field SCT and the very expensive (but optically phenomenal) Corrected Dall-Kirkham (CDK...just check out PlaneWave to see how expensive)). Astigmatism is also more prominent in astrophotography, as it has a non-uniform effect on star reproduction...possibly resulting in non-spherical stars, or non-spherical "slightly squashed" star diffraction glow, due do the non-uniform focus with angle.

Field curvature is probably known amongst older portrait photographers as it has a tendency to warp blurred backgrounds in a rather visible (and frustrating) way...it isn't all that common these days in good lenses. Field curvature is also quite common in DSLR optical eyepieces...I often see field curvature when I look through my viewfinder and 600mm lens, even though I know the 600mm lens has a very flat field.

 

[flowers]

It weighs that much in part because although the front element diameter is approximately the same as a 600/4, the curvature of the element has to be greater in order to achieve a higher refractive power corresponding to half the focal length. It also needs more correction for chromatic aberration, as well as correction for those Seidel aberrations that are f-number dependent.

The other reason why this lens is so heavy is because at the time of its design, optical glass production was not as sophisticated as it is today. The use of anomalous dispersion glass such as fluorite crown was not quite as common back then, meaning that achieving apochromatic performance involved more design complexity. We can also see this in the Canon EF 200/1.8L design, which uses UD glass instead of pure fluorite--the result was a very front-heavy lens.

Still another reason is simply the use of heavier materials for the barrel construction, as opposed to today's use of plastics and lightweight alloys (titanium and/or magnesium).

Canon designed on paper several optical formulas, one of which was a 200/1.4 and I believe a 280/1.8 or 300/1.8, if I recall correctly. They appeared to use a massive amount of glass, and I suspect this was the reason why they never saw commercial production. Nowadays, with the advent of IS and high-sensitivity digital imaging sensors, the major lens manufacturers see little if any reason to design ultrafast aperture lenses at any focal length, even though many photographers would still love to use them. Canon hasn't optically designed an f/1.2 lens for the 135 format since the EF 50/1.2L (the EF 85/1.2L II is optically identical to its predecessor); Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades. Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of. It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Interesting and informative post, thank you! Yes it's a shame these were never produced. I don't recall the term "Seidel aberration", but perhaps I've read it...I think on the lensrentals blog. From your take on it, it sounds like you think the current generation of f/1.2 lenses will be the last. I hope not. But it would make sense. It seems like most everyone likes a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, more than a faster aperture prime. I'm not one of these people...

Me neither! All my primes are f/1.x except for the ultrawide end and the longest end, but I want to pick up a 135/2 or a 135/1.8 in addition to my 135/2.8. I prefer fast glass over high ISO, flash and slow shutter speed any day! Even if I'm using a camera that can get usable or even good results at crazy ISOs, I still prefer using faster glass

ps. almost all modern lenses are close to being anastigmats. That leaves field curvature, but that's only relevant if you have to do copywork like copying stamps. Then you should buy a flat field lens. They made many good ones in the 60's and those are cheap too!

 

[Mr Bean]

I'd read about this lens over the years. The lens was a little pricey for its time (early 80's) at around $29,000! Along with the 6mm fish eye (with a field of view of 220 deg), it was made in an era where exotic lenses were the norm for Nikon and Canon. Ah the good 'ol days

 

[ksagomonyants]

There are actually quite a few truly unique lenses designed for regular photography purposes. To name:
- Canon 65mm f0.75
- Repro Nikkor 85mm f1.0 Supersonic Macro Lens
- Canon 50mm f0.95
- Canon 5200mm f14.0
- Canon 2000mm f11.0
- Canon 800mm f3.8
- APO NIKKOR Nikon 1780mm f14.0 Ultra Large Format
- Samyang 650-1300 f8-16.0 Tele Zoom Manual Focus Lens
- ZEISS Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f4.0 (for medium format, weighs 560 pounds)
- Zeiss 400mm f1.5
- Repro Nikkor 170mm f1.4

There are also many unique lenses used for medical/military/astronomy purposes, which you can't use in the regular SLR cameras. For example:
- Some old Soviet lenses Iskra 72mm f0.65 and 20 f0.5
- Zeiss Fernobiektiv 28000mm and ZEISS JENA IR-OBJEKTIV 720mm f/2.0.
- Leitz Canada M-Mount 90mm f1.0 Elcan from US Navy
- Balcar Elliptar 235mm f1.0

 

[flowers]

There are actually quite a few truly unique lenses designed for regular photography purposes. To name:
- Canon 65mm f0.75
- Repro Nikkor 85mm f1.0 Supersonic Macro Lens
- Canon 50mm f0.95
- Canon 5200mm f14.0
- Canon 2000mm f11.0
- Canon 800mm f3.8
- APO NIKKOR Nikon 1780mm f14.0 Ultra Large Format
- Samyang 650-1300 f8-16.0 Tele Zoom Manual Focus Lens
- ZEISS Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f4.0 (for medium format, weighs 560 pounds)
- Zeiss 400mm f1.5
- Repro Nikkor 170mm f1.4

There are also many unique lenses used for medical/military/astronomy purposes, which you can't use in the regular SLR cameras. For example:
- Some old Soviet lenses Iskra 72mm f0.65 and 20 f0.5
- Zeiss Fernobiektiv 28000mm and ZEISS JENA IR-OBJEKTIV 720mm f/2.0.
- Leitz Canada M-Mount 90mm f1.0 Elcan from US Navy
- Balcar Elliptar 235mm f1.0

Thank you for the list I haven't heard of over half of those lenses!

 

[epsiloneri]

There are also many unique lenses used for medical/military/astronomy purposes, which you can't use in the regular SLR cameras. For example: [...]

Don't forget the 57600mm f24 lens in orbit, or the giant 14760mm f1.8 lenses on the ground. Of course, both will pale in comparison to the planned 420000mm f10 lens. All for non-DSLR cameras, of course

 

[drummstikk]

I'd read about this lens over the years. The lens was a little pricey for its time (early 80's) at around $29,000! Along with the 6mm fish eye (with a field of view of 220 deg), it was made in an era where exotic lenses were the norm for Nikon and Canon. Ah the good 'ol days

The local dealer in Muncie, Indiana where I was attending college (Ball State University) had one of these lenses in stock back in the mid-80s. I recall they had the lens for sale for a relatively reasonable $12,000. Naturally, it ended up being purchased by a dentist and not a real working photographer. After that, according to the sales people in the store, if you wanted to purchase this lens you had to put down a 50% down payment, and then they would START MAKING ONE. By that time the price had gone up to the $29,000 figure mentioned for the custom build. I'd speculate that fewer than 50 of these lenses were ever made.

One came through a dealer in Indianapolis within the last couple of years or so and was sold fairly quickly priced at $4200.00. My memory may be faulty, but I believe this lens came with matched 1.4X and 2X teleconverters to make it into a 420mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4.

 

[ksagomonyants]

Thank you for the list I haven't heard of over half of those lenses!

You're welcome You can see some of these and other lenses being sold on ebay once in a while. But I don't think the quality of images will be good, though. Canon 5200mm f14.0 is more or less known, there is a nice video on Youtube about it. This lens together with Canon 2000mm f11.0 and 800mm f3.8 were manufactured specifically for the Summer Olympics in LA in 1984. I guess that's why they all have long focal lengths.

I can't think how narrow depth of field of Nikon 85 1.0 is Here's this lens http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/repro1pon.html

I'm actually curious how much it'd cost Canon/Nikon/Zeiss etc. to make a special order lens. So, let's say if someone rich and a little crazy wants to get 100 1.0 or something similar, would the manufacturer do that?

 

[flowers]

Thank you for the list I haven't heard of over half of those lenses!

You're welcome You can see some of these and other lenses being sold on ebay once in a while. But I don't think the quality of images will be good, though. Canon 5200mm f14.0 is more or less known, there is a nice video on Youtube about it. This lens together with Canon 2000mm f11.0 and 800mm f3.8 were manufactured specifically for the Summer Olympics in LA in 1984. I guess that's why they all have long focal lengths.

I can't think how narrow depth of field of Nikon 85 1.0 is Here's this lens http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/repro1pon.html

I'm actually curious how much it'd cost Canon/Nikon/Zeiss etc. to make a special order lens. So, let's say if someone rich and a little crazy wants to get 100 1.0 or something similar, would the manufacturer do that?

I actually looked it up and managed to find some low res (I think it was 1200px wide?) images taken with the 85/1. The DOF looked something like 1mm form up close (flowers). Not that hugely different from my 55/1.2. It was clear from the images that any pictures taken with that lens would look great. Exception to the "don't expect the images to look good" above, probably because that lens was made for SLRs. Nikkor 135/2 is also a nice lens and renders images very nicely. I prefer it over the Canon 135/2 but I don't own either (yet!)

 

[flowers]

On the other rumors site they noted that a Nikon 300f2 went up for sale.

I thought, "oh neat, a 300f2 sounds like a great idea". Turns out the thing weighs 7,500 grams. That's almost twice as much as the 600f4ISII, and as much as two whole 300f2.8ISII+1Dx kits.
Things really have come a long way.

I can't wait for Canon or Nikon to put out a few more crazy projects like these again.

There are many great lenses better to pass on because of the weight! And they were all made a long time ago for film cameras, and almost all are still great lenses today. Some are lenses that wouldn't work as everyday lenses but would be wonderful as cinematic lenses, like the Vivitar 135/1.5.

 

[CarlTN]

It weighs that much in part because although the front element diameter is approximately the same as a 600/4, the curvature of the element has to be greater in order to achieve a higher refractive power corresponding to half the focal length. It also needs more correction for chromatic aberration, as well as correction for those Seidel aberrations that are f-number dependent.

The other reason why this lens is so heavy is because at the time of its design, optical glass production was not as sophisticated as it is today. The use of anomalous dispersion glass such as fluorite crown was not quite as common back then, meaning that achieving apochromatic performance involved more design complexity. We can also see this in the Canon EF 200/1.8L design, which uses UD glass instead of pure fluorite--the result was a very front-heavy lens.

Still another reason is simply the use of heavier materials for the barrel construction, as opposed to today's use of plastics and lightweight alloys (titanium and/or magnesium).

Canon designed on paper several optical formulas, one of which was a 200/1.4 and I believe a 280/1.8 or 300/1.8, if I recall correctly. They appeared to use a massive amount of glass, and I suspect this was the reason why they never saw commercial production. Nowadays, with the advent of IS and high-sensitivity digital imaging sensors, the major lens manufacturers see little if any reason to design ultrafast aperture lenses at any focal length, even though many photographers would still love to use them. Canon hasn't optically designed an f/1.2 lens for the 135 format since the EF 50/1.2L (the EF 85/1.2L II is optically identical to its predecessor); Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades. Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of. It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Interesting and informative post, thank you! Yes it's a shame these were never produced. I don't recall the term "Seidel aberration", but perhaps I've read it...I think on the lensrentals blog. From your take on it, it sounds like you think the current generation of f/1.2 lenses will be the last. I hope not. But it would make sense. It seems like most everyone likes a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, more than a faster aperture prime. I'm not one of these people...

Siedel aberrations are the five most well known aberrations that most photographers talk about. So, technically, you do know about them...you just didn't know that.

The Five Siedel Aberrations:

- Spherical Aberratin
- Astigmatism
- Distortion
- Coma
- Field Curvature

Coma and Astigmatism and possibly Field Curvature are maybe a little less known to most photographers. Certain groups would be more familiar with them. For example, coma is very well known amongst astrophotographers, and field curvature has an impact on peripheral field performance in astrophotography (the advent of flatter field optics like flat-field SCT and the very expensive (but optically phenomenal) Corrected Dall-Kirkham (CDK...just check out PlaneWave to see how expensive)). Astigmatism is also more prominent in astrophotography, as it has a non-uniform effect on star reproduction...possibly resulting in non-spherical stars, or non-spherical "slightly squashed" star diffraction glow, due do the non-uniform focus with angle.

Field curvature is probably known amongst older portrait photographers as it has a tendency to warp blurred backgrounds in a rather visible (and frustrating) way...it isn't all that common these days in good lenses. Field curvature is also quite common in DSLR optical eyepieces...I often see field curvature when I look through my viewfinder and 600mm lens, even though I know the 600mm lens has a very flat field.

Thanks for the info, but I disagree...the most well known aberration regarding photography or lenses, seems to be chromatic aberration.

 

[CarlTN]

There are actually quite a few truly unique lenses designed for regular photography purposes. To name:
- Canon 65mm f0.75
- Repro Nikkor 85mm f1.0 Supersonic Macro Lens
- Canon 50mm f0.95
- Canon 5200mm f14.0
- Canon 2000mm f11.0
- Canon 800mm f3.8
- APO NIKKOR Nikon 1780mm f14.0 Ultra Large Format
- Samyang 650-1300 f8-16.0 Tele Zoom Manual Focus Lens
- ZEISS Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f4.0 (for medium format, weighs 560 pounds)
- Zeiss 400mm f1.5
- Repro Nikkor 170mm f1.4

There are also many unique lenses used for medical/military/astronomy purposes, which you can't use in the regular SLR cameras. For example:
- Some old Soviet lenses Iskra 72mm f0.65 and 20 f0.5
- Zeiss Fernobiektiv 28000mm and ZEISS JENA IR-OBJEKTIV 720mm f/2.0.
- Leitz Canada M-Mount 90mm f1.0 Elcan from US Navy
- Balcar Elliptar 235mm f1.0

Those are interesting, thanks! I'd already heard of and seen the Zeiss 1700mm f/4 (via a lensrentals.com blog post). I'd never heard of the 400mm f/1.5 or the 720mm f/2. These sound promising for wildlife in low light, I think I will order them now ...

You forgot the Leica 50mm Noctilux, and also I believe Leica themselves made an M-Mount 90mm f/1.0, unless that is the same "Leitz" that you mention. I could be wrong on that.

I've heard of the Canon 65mm f/.75, but not the 50mm f/.95. I only know of the Canon 50mm f/1.0. I think it went out of production in the early 1990's? You can still rent it.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades. Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of. It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I've read somewhere that the Nikon lens mount is too 'tight' (rear element cannot be large enough) for a 50 or 85mm brighter than f/1.4. Although that may be based on double Gauss designs, I think with retrofocus it should be possible to go brighter.

 

[Mr Bean]

I've heard of the Canon 65mm f/.75, but not the 50mm f/.95. I only know of the Canon 50mm f/1.0. I think it went out of production in the early 1990's? You can still rent it.

A few years back, there was a camera shop, here in Melbourne (Australia) called the "Camera Exchange". In one of the displays, they had one of these 50mm f0.95 lenses and a large BW print (a portrait) made from this lens. Exceptional image, considering the speed of the lens.

In a second cabinet, they had the Nikor 6mm lens. A beautiful, fishbowl shaped lens

As another poster has mentioned, these lenses were made back in the film era. In the case of super fast apertures, I guess that was partly driven by the fact that changing ISO wasn't as easy as it is these days.

 

[CarlTN]

I've heard of the Canon 65mm f/.75, but not the 50mm f/.95. I only know of the Canon 50mm f/1.0. I think it went out of production in the early 1990's? You can still rent it.

A few years back, there was a camera shop, here in Melbourne (Australia) called the "Camera Exchange". In one of the displays, they had one of these 50mm f0.95 lenses and a large BW print (a portrait) made from this lens. Exceptional image, considering the speed of the lens.

In a second cabinet, they had the Nikor 6mm lens. A beautiful, fishbowl shaped lens

As another poster has mentioned, these lenses were made back in the film era. In the case of super fast apertures, I guess that was partly driven by the fact that changing ISO wasn't as easy as it is these days.

No doubt, but has been stated...the digital era has made photography a big business, where everyone is now a photographer. But it's also necessarily become less specialized...and apparently very fast prime lenses are not seen as necessary or cost effective, in a world where a new "rebel" has to be introduced every 6 months. I guess I don't blame Canon. But really Sigma is now the company that is more likely to produce a very specialized lens...it seems to me. They just introduced a new DP series camera with a 39 MP 1.5x crop sensor...so they are innovating, and that's a good thing.

I like hearing your story about seeing the lens on display, and seeing the print! Moments like that are what make impressions on us. I've had several moments like that, but they usually have something to do with exotic sports cars or women, haha. It's a shame the specialty camera shops are going away, or at least they are here.

I would love to visit Australia someday, especially that valley with the dinosaur-era trees still growing there. I know it's restricted but somehow I want to go and take pictures of it.

I'm also amazed at the wildfires you have in your rainforests down there...where the tree sap is about as flammable as gasoline...so it doesn't matter if it's a wet season, you can still have forest fires...that's crazy! The cedar trees and pine trees we have here in Tennessee, have highly flammable sap...but it's nowhere near that bad. They would not burn easily after days of rain...and most of the hardwoods would not burn at all in the wet.

 

[Mr Bean]

I like hearing your story about seeing the lens on display, and seeing the print! Moments like that are what make impressions on us. I've had several moments like that, but they usually have something to do with exotic sports cars or women, haha. It's a shame the specialty camera shops are going away, or at least they are here.

Yeah, the Camera Exchange still exists as a camera shop, but its moved out from Melbourne (too expensive) and its just a shadow of itself, unfortunately. It was almost like a museum, with the range of second hand gear. A lot of Nikor gear from the late 60's and 70's. Alas, just not the market these days :-\

I would love to visit Australia someday, especially that valley with the dinosaur-era trees still growing there. I know it's restricted but somehow I want to go and take pictures of it.

Wollemi pine, I presume. That's out near the Blue Mountains (some hours drive west of Sydney). A stunning place to visit (the Blue Mountains).

I'm also amazed at the wildfires you have in your rainforests down there...where the tree sap is about as flammable as gasoline...so it doesn't matter if it's a wet season, you can still have forest fires...that's crazy! The cedar trees and pine trees we have here in Tennessee, have highly flammable sap...but it's nowhere near that bad. They would not burn easily after days of rain...and most of the hardwoods would not burn at all in the wet.

Eucalyptus (gum) leaves contain a small amount of flammable oil, which means they burn really well, even when green off the tree. The forests tend to be dry in the summer, rather than a rainforest, and very moist in winter. Spring creates a great deal of growth, leading into summer, when it starts to dry out. As a natural process, the trees drop a lot of leaves in this dry time, leading to a high volume (2-4 inches) of dry leaf matter on the ground. This acts as a mulch, to slow the drying out, and reduces the evaporation from the tree (less surface area). But, if a fire starts, then its an issue.

Oops, I'm getting onto one of my pet subjects and way off topic....sorry to the OP....