The Mother of all Telephotos

zntgrg · 02-06-2008, 02:13 AM

The rear lens cap is an Hasselblad

wouldn't be the same [for 1/200 the price] to take a russian MTO with a teleconverter...or maybe two in a row?

Cambo · 02-06-2008, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

Not for pentax, but interesting.
B&H Photo Video Pro Audio- The Mother of all Telephotos

Zeiss 1700 f=4 POS...

I'm holding out for the 2.8 PRO version...

Cameron

kyrios · 02-06-2008, 11:44 AM

Hubble telescope and other famous telescopes in the world are made from CZ optics. If NASA trust on their optics quality , then we should do, right? Time to consider purchasing CZ 85/1.4?

kyrios

séamuis · 02-07-2008, 08:58 AM

canon has apparently back in the day made a lens that out classes everything. having a lens that can see 18 to 32 miles away!

this is truly the mother of all lenses, period.

24X36NOW · 02-07-2008, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Cambo

Zeiss 1700 f=4 POS...

I'm holding out for the 2.8 PRO version...

Cameron

That thing isn't a lens, that's a shuttlecraft LOL

Or, (how can I resist)..."That's no moon - it's a SPACE STATION!"

The supertele I want them to make In PK mount is the "Sigmonster" (300 - 800 F 5.6)

clawhammer · 02-07-2008, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by seamuis

holy........ Yeah. Wowser. The B&H article on the canon 1200 mentions something like 3800mm with a 2x converter and the 1.6 crop of the XTi... Image this beast on an XTi... 8320mm....

*collects jaw off of floor*

edit: just realized that this is for the older MF mount, but still....

**barondla** · 02-09-2008, 07:10 PM

Never heard Hubbel was made by CZ. CZ had better hope not, since Hubbel was badly crippled by a horribly out of spec mirror. The company that made that part was Perkin Elmer. A famous high quality optical manufacturer (untill this accident). They also built the Vivitar solid cat lenses. They went belly up years later. The second good mirror was made by Eastman Kodak. It still sits in a warehouse on earth somewhere. It was perfect! Hubbel had to be fitted with glasses to fix its vision! It was a good fix but not as good as it should have been. There are bigger scopes than the Hubbel. They are earth based.
thanks
barondla

Anastigmat · 02-09-2008, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Hard to believe there is really a market for a $100K lens.

Then there's always this beast as well:

Attachment 8205

May be an astronaut can handhold this monster in space under weightless conditions. Wonder if NASA will be interested.

falconeye · 02-09-2008, 08:10 PM

I accept the Zeiss as a serious contender for biggest.

I reject the Canon lens however. It clearly is a derived mirror scope like the Celestrons etc. A reflector, not a refractor. You can still see the barely covered original scope mountings. It is not even specified, which kind of reflector it is. Newtonian?

The point is, we all can buy a decent 2000mm f/10 reflector and build a huge lens for a fraction of the price of a Pentax lens (BTW question: why isn't anybody doing so?).

If we accepted the Canon lens, we would just ask for the biggest telescope which is the Large Binocular Telescope at Mount Graham, AZ, USA. But knowing the answer, the question becomes boring.

So, what is the biggest true tele lens ever build?

falconeye · 02-09-2008, 08:25 PM

Maybe, i should add two photos on topic then...

(1) *istDS 40mm f/4.5 (Pentax DA Limited)

(2) *istDS 2000mm f/10 (Celestron C8, not yet optimally calibrated)

BTW, hard to focus on such short distances even at f/10

zntgrg · 02-10-2008, 04:23 AM

Nikon made it even zoom

the 360-1200/11...

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais3601200.jpg

**SCGushue** · 02-10-2008, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by kyrios

Hubble telescope and other famous telescopes in the world are made from CZ optics. If NASA trust on their optics quality , then we should do, right? Time to consider purchasing CZ 85/1.4?

kyrios

Kyrios,

Actually, the main lens elements in the hubble telescope (main mirrors) are made and ground just doen the road from where I live in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, a hair thickness error in polishing made the lens somewhat myopic.

It was later corrected, I thought by the same company, but above poster probably is correct in saying Kodak made the correcting lens.

Stephen

**barondla** · 02-11-2008, 06:44 AM

Not saying Kodak made the correcting lens. Don't know who made it. At the same time NASA had a backup lens made in case something happened to the original. Faulty testing ( many say lack of testing) sent the bad one into space. Proper testing would have grounded it and sent up the good Kodak lens. Such a shame. Hubbel could have been even better than it is. It is incredible.

thanks
barondla

nex1 · 02-11-2008, 08:46 AM

The good/backup lens was made by Kodak, you can check Wiki

Duck Dodgers · 02-12-2008, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I reject the Canon lens however. It clearly is a derived mirror scope like the Celestrons etc. A reflector, not a refractor. You can still see the barely covered original scope mountings. It is not even specified, which kind of reflector it is. Newtonian?

It does say what kind of reflector it is. It's catadioptric; i.e., it has both lenses and mirrors. So, it's not a Newtonian (no lenses; angled secondary mirror near the aperture) and it's not a classical Cassegrain (no lenses; "folded" light path through primary mirror). Therefore it's likely similar to either a Schmidt-Cassegrain or a Maksutov-Cassegrain.

Quote:

The point is, we all can buy a decent 2000mm f/10 reflector and build a huge lens for a fraction of the price of a Pentax lens (BTW question: why isn't anybody doing so?).

Some of us have; I have a 2400mm classical Cassegrain.

02-06-2008, 10:08 AM	#17
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	The Mother of all Telephotos? Not quite... Originally posted by jgredline Not for pentax, but interesting. B&H Photo Video Pro Audio- The Mother of all Telephotos Zeiss 1700 f=4 POS... I'm holding out for the 2.8 PRO version... Cameron

02-09-2008, 08:25 PM	#25
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Maybe, i should add two photos on topic then... (1) istDS 40mm f/4.5 (Pentax DA Limited) (2) istDS 2000mm f/10 (Celestron C8, not yet optimally calibrated) BTW, hard to focus on such short distances even at f/10 Last edited by falconeye; 03-17-2008 at 07:06 PM.

02-10-2008, 05:04 PM	#27
SCGushue Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,449	Originally posted by kyrios Hubble telescope and other famous telescopes in the world are made from CZ optics. If NASA trust on their optics quality , then we should do, right? Time to consider purchasing CZ 85/1.4? kyrios Kyrios, Actually, the main lens elements in the hubble telescope (main mirrors) are made and ground just doen the road from where I live in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, a hair thickness error in polishing made the lens somewhat myopic. It was later corrected, I thought by the same company, but above poster probably is correct in saying Kodak made the correcting lens. Stephen Last edited by SCGushue; 02-10-2008 at 05:12 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Inexpensive telephotos	nick c	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	11-13-2009 07:49 PM
Two questions, one thread: Telephotos and focus screens, oh my!	Dubious Drewski	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	09-10-2009 01:11 PM
Using long telephotos & Shake reduction	mr.voigtlander	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	06-04-2009 11:56 PM
Best long (affordable) telephotos?	Finn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	10-12-2007 01:44 PM
New DA* Telephotos	kent vinyard	Pentax News and Rumors	9	08-30-2007 01:48 AM

02-06-2008, 02:13 AM	#16
zntgrg Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Verona, Italy Posts: 202	The rear lens cap is an Hasselblad wouldn't be the same [for 1/200 the price] to take a russian MTO with a teleconverter...or maybe two in a row?

02-06-2008, 11:44 AM	#18
kyrios Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Indonesia Posts: 123	Hubble telescope and other famous telescopes in the world are made from CZ optics. If NASA trust on their optics quality , then we should do, right? Time to consider purchasing CZ 85/1.4? kyrios

02-07-2008, 08:58 AM	#19
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	canon has apparently back in the day made a lens that out classes everything. having a lens that can see 18 to 32 miles away! this is truly the mother of all lenses, period.

02-07-2008, 07:58 PM	#20
24X36NOW Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: CT, USA Posts: 498	Originally posted by Cambo Zeiss 1700 f=4 POS... I'm holding out for the 2.8 PRO version... Cameron That thing isn't a lens, that's a shuttlecraft LOL Or, (how can I resist)..."That's no moon - it's a SPACE STATION!" The supertele I want them to make In PK mount is the "Sigmonster" (300 - 800 F 5.6)

02-07-2008, 10:00 PM	#21
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	Originally posted by seamuis holy........ Yeah. Wowser. The B&H article on the canon 1200 mentions something like 3800mm with a 2x converter and the 1.6 crop of the XTi... Image this beast on an XTi... 8320mm.... collects jaw off of floor edit: just realized that this is for the older MF mount, but still....

02-09-2008, 07:10 PM	#22
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	Never heard Hubbel was made by CZ. CZ had better hope not, since Hubbel was badly crippled by a horribly out of spec mirror. The company that made that part was Perkin Elmer. A famous high quality optical manufacturer (untill this accident). They also built the Vivitar solid cat lenses. They went belly up years later. The second good mirror was made by Eastman Kodak. It still sits in a warehouse on earth somewhere. It was perfect! Hubbel had to be fitted with glasses to fix its vision! It was a good fix but not as good as it should have been. There are bigger scopes than the Hubbel. They are earth based. thanks barondla

02-09-2008, 07:13 PM	#23
Anastigmat Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 126	Originally posted by Peter Zack Hard to believe there is really a market for a $100K lens. Then there's always this beast as well: Attachment 8205 May be an astronaut can handhold this monster in space under weightless conditions. Wonder if NASA will be interested.

02-09-2008, 08:10 PM	#24
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	I accept the Zeiss as a serious contender for biggest. I reject the Canon lens however. It clearly is a derived mirror scope like the Celestrons etc. A reflector, not a refractor. You can still see the barely covered original scope mountings. It is not even specified, which kind of reflector it is. Newtonian? The point is, we all can buy a decent 2000mm f/10 reflector and build a huge lens for a fraction of the price of a Pentax lens (BTW question: why isn't anybody doing so?). If we accepted the Canon lens, we would just ask for the biggest telescope which is the Large Binocular Telescope at Mount Graham, AZ, USA. But knowing the answer, the question becomes boring. So, what is the biggest true tele lens ever build?

02-10-2008, 04:23 AM	#26
zntgrg Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Verona, Italy Posts: 202	Nikon made it even zoom the 360-1200/11... http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais3601200.jpg

02-11-2008, 06:44 AM	#28
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,715	Not saying Kodak made the correcting lens. Don't know who made it. At the same time NASA had a backup lens made in case something happened to the original. Faulty testing ( many say lack of testing) sent the bad one into space. Proper testing would have grounded it and sent up the good Kodak lens. Such a shame. Hubbel could have been even better than it is. It is incredible. thanks barondla

02-11-2008, 08:46 AM	#29
nex1 Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 37	The good/backup lens was made by Kodak, you can check Wiki

02-12-2008, 07:50 AM	#30
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Originally posted by falconeye I reject the Canon lens however. It clearly is a derived mirror scope like the Celestrons etc. A reflector, not a refractor. You can still see the barely covered original scope mountings. It is not even specified, which kind of reflector it is. Newtonian? It does say what kind of reflector it is. It's catadioptric; i.e., it has both lenses and mirrors. So, it's not a Newtonian (no lenses; angled secondary mirror near the aperture) and it's not a classical Cassegrain (no lenses; "folded" light path through primary mirror). Therefore it's likely similar to either a Schmidt-Cassegrain or a Maksutov-Cassegrain. Quote: The point is, we all can buy a decent 2000mm f/10 reflector and build a huge lens for a fraction of the price of a Pentax lens (BTW question: why isn't anybody doing so?). Some of us have; I have a 2400mm classical Cassegrain.