Link is to Giz Mag with article about a H U G E fisheye lens that sold for $162,000.The 6mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens weighs 11.46 pounds, is 9.29 inches in diameter and some 6.73 inches in lengthInteresting to see that much precision glass. Nikon F looks tiny attached to it.
http://www.gizmag.com/nikkor-fisheye-lens-100k-pounds/22333/pictures
6mm f/2.8 Nikkor sold for $162,000
(17 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
These do pop up from time to time. For the hard up amongst us there is an f5.6 version on ebay right now for a mere $12,000 (it's a buy-it-now item too)...
Posted 1 year ago # -
What is so interesting is the image looks like the 10.5mm Nikkor on FX.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7050923197/in/photostream/lightbox/
Posted 1 year ago # -
I see the British Journal of Photography also has this lens in an article on its webpage today.
Posted 1 year ago # -
msmoto said:
What is so interesting is the image looks like the 10.5mm Nikkor on FX.http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7050923197/in/photostream/lightbox/
I love my 10.5mm but the 6mm lens is way wider and much better on the edges. I so really want this lens but at a tag of over $50,000, it is waaaayyy out of my range.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timflorianhorn/455576779/in/photostream/
Posted 1 year ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
I love my 10.5mm but the 6mm lens is way wider and much better on the edges. I so really want this lens but at a tag of over $50,000, it is waaaayyy out of my range.http://www.flickr.com/photos/timflorianhorn/455576779/in/photostream/
OK, OK, but I have further modified it, cleaning up the cut edges of the removed lens hood, and will do some more testing..... like I am going to catch up, ha, ha, ha....
Posted 1 year ago # -
Lol... One day Ill take your advice and cut off the hood of mine (You would probably die inside if I showed you what the front element looks like :P)... Really clean photo btw... I hear that the fx "10.5mm" the 16mm isn't as sharp...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wonder what the Bokeh is like for $162K?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes Kyoshinikon its way wider thats nearly an extra 4mm! haha thats insane! Not only would the tripod be in the frame but probably your legs and entire body as well! Thanks for passing this on Funduro its amazing how the lens dwarfs the body like that. It would look really funny on the Nikon V1, D40 or D5200 I bet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is really a fascinating lens.. especially when one realizes it was designed without computer assist. It would be interesting to see if NIKON ever comes up with another one which covers 220°. Of course, the $6,000.00 price tag may keep most of us away forma new one....ha, ha, ha. I will just keep my Modified 10.5 which is a very crisp lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wow I wonder what mine is worth. It's newer than the one that sold. I really wanted a 400/2.8 but I can find those regularly. Not so the 6mm.
Posted 1 year ago # -
OK, new look. The images are very interesting. And when one considers this was built long ago before the exotic coatings on lens elements... WOW
Posted 12 months ago # -
Makes the Sigma 4.5 2.8 Circular Fish eye look cheap at £600 00
Posted 11 months ago # -
and I thought nikon 16mm F2.8 is expensive o-O
Posted 11 months ago # -
Just for comparison, I think the NIKON technology has progressed immensely and I will put up the performance of the 10.5mm here. First a crop of the edge of the following photo
(This is like looking at an enlargement greater than 20" X 30" if your window is about 11" X 8" on your monitor.
or greater than 50cm x 75cm if window is 28cm x 20cm)and the full frame
If one examines the 2000px size, it is seen the 10.5 is a real performer. In my experience with the hood removed, the coverage is about 190°.
Posted 11 months ago # -
msmoto said:
Just for comparison, I think the NIKON technology has progressed immensely and I will put up the performance of the 10.5mm here.That is a lot of CA. I am happy I got the Samyang 8mm fisheye instead. Less CA, extreme sharpness and very good flare resistance.
And when it comes to the 6mm f/2.8, some collector (had) too much money..
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
