Just a bit of fun.. guess .. (Well maybe I have it wrong too but have a guess anyway..)
Trivial pursuit : What is the most expensive nikkor lens below 300mm?
(31 posts) (15 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Nikon 13mm f/5.6 ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
That massive fisheye thingy or that Noctor probably. Definitely not something made in the last 10 years that's for sure.
Posted 2 years ago # -
if it's a current new model I'm thining the 200mm f2
Posted 2 years ago # -
Anonymous
Unregistered
Posts: 51offlineCurrent = 200mm f/2.0
All time: 6mm f/2.8 fisheye
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think the 200 f/2, as well. How long does this competition run, hearty?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nikon 58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor
Posted 2 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
I think the 200 f/2, as well. How long does this competition run, hearty?Lets say till we are all bored with it !! LOL ... probably a couple of days or so ...
Ok so far the suggestions we have are ...
1) 200mm F2.0 - Current
2) 58mm F1.2 Noct
3) 13 mm F5.6
4) 6mm F2.8 FisheyePosted 2 years ago # -
You haven't said if this is for the all-time most expensive or the most expensive lens currently made? I'm already bored and I just got here so just give the answer up already.
Posted 2 years ago # -
200/2 for sure. . .everything else had been discontinued. . .
Posted 2 years ago # -
the 6mm f2.8 list price in Canada was $38,000 in the early 80's I have seen many 200mm f2 on ebay but any 6mm f2.8 still sell for huge money mainly due to the numbers made. At one time I owned a Nikon F2H the ONLY one ever to be Canada unfortunately it was stolen from my studio 30 years ago. The most expensive Nikon lens of all time is the 1200-1700 zoom there was between 12 to 18 ever made for National Geographic who paid around $150,000 per lens
Posted 2 years ago # -
I almost forgot about the Nikon 300mm f2.0 I think that it listed for around 80,000 way back when.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Whoops. Didn't read the "below 300mm" thing...
I would guess the 6mm f/2.8 fisheye then. Either that or the 300mm f/2.0.
I just wish Nikon were still coming up with groundbreaking lenses like these, updated with current technology. I guess the only problem is that it's just for show - no one has any real use for them, and they'd be too expensive to sell in volumes large enough to justify their cost anyway.
Still, it'd be interesting to see things like a 200mm f/1.4 lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You guys obviously haven't seen my 5mm - 300mm f/1
It's priceless... lol
Posted 2 years ago # -
rhodium said:
Whoops. Didn't read the "below 300mm" thing...I would guess the 6mm f/2.8 fisheye then. Either that or the 300mm f/2.0.
I just wish Nikon were still coming up with groundbreaking lenses like these, updated with current technology. I guess the only problem is that it's just for show - no one has any real use for them, and they'd be too expensive to sell in volumes large enough to justify their cost anyway.
Still, it'd be interesting to see things like a 200mm f/1.4 lens.
I don't think they want to spend money on R and D on a lens only 10 people could buy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know its not the most expensive but people forgot about the 28mm 1.4 prime. This rare gem can easily run over $5,000 if you can even find one.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
kanuck said:
I know its not the most expensive but people forgot about the 28mm 1.4 prime. This rare gem can easily run over $5,000 if you can even find one.BINGO !
well that was what I was thinking of when I started this thread ..
but due to the vagueness of the question .. heh .. I think the 200mm is a worthy mention as it is current.
I had totally forgot about that 6mm but I dont think it fits our DSLRs.. as it needs the mirror to be up I think.. Similarly for the 13mm..
Well that was fun! I learnt some things.. Thanks for playing!
PS I think the Noct 58 1.2 is actually a bit more expensive than the 28 1.4.. So thats a winner too ! LOL
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
My fave the 6mm f/2.8 runs about $42,000 now...
Posted 2 years ago # -
NSX-Type R I hear that some people who actually own the 28mm 1.4 traded them in for the new 24mm 1.4 I don't know why you would though because if your a 28mm shooter then thats your focal length of choice. 24 and a 28 seem close but they are actually very different. I still like shooting a nice 35mm prime and its become my prime range of choice.
Posted 2 years ago # -
kanuck said:
NSX-Type R I hear that some people who actually own the 28mm 1.4 traded them in for the new 24mm 1.4 I don't know why you would though because if your a 28mm shooter then thats your focal length of choice. 24 and a 28 seem close but they are actually very different. I still like shooting a nice 35mm prime and its become my prime range of choice.That's true- 24mm to 28mm could be a big difference, but 4mm not worth the $2000 difference to me (not a pro, duh). I guess at the wide end it makes a bigger difference, it certainly does for DX.
I wouldn't trade it in either, I'd sell it for much more on EBay. :D It'd be more than enough to buy 1.5 24mm 1.4s. I don't know what you'd do with half a 24mm 1.4 though. :D
On a more serious note, I guess they wanted the AF-S.
By the way, do you shoot DX or FX? I'm loving the 35mm 1.8 for it's speed. It's not nearly as wide as I want though. Far from it in fact. Too bad they don't make any cheap AF-S wide primes.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Who me NSXType-R or heartyfisher? I shoot FX and am recently loving my 24-70 lens that I picked up yesterday. I finally traded in my 70-200mm VR 1 with TC 1.7 straight up for a new 24-70 in my camera district. Then I traded in my 28mm AIS, 28-80G and $150 for a 70-300mm VR telephoto. I love the 24-70 range and wanted the speed and I couldn't handle the weight of the 70-200 anymore. The newer VR 2 is even heavier. I'd love to have an F4 Canon style 70-200 with similar wait, but for now the 70-300mm is great for what I do.
By the way, NSXType-R did you finish school yet? I remember you were saying you are close no?
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
