>> |
Anonymous
>>182004 >>182007
No, see,
>>181998
is a weird supertele from Leica, essentially their version of this>>181996Sigma lens. Instead of compromising optical quality across the whole range by building one huge zoom, they came up with an innovative solution, sort of similar to large format convertor lenses.
It's an 800/5.6, just like the Sigma at the long end, but it can be partially disassembled, removing "modules" (groups of elements stuck into a case) to get other focal lengths. The advantage is better performance and faster apertures; the disadvantage is speed in moving across and continuity of the range. (I don't know how much of a loss in working speed it is, because I don't know if they hook together with a bayonet or a screwmount.)
It's essentially a bastard cross of a zoom lens and a set of teleconvertors, resembling the former in purpose and the latter in design. The focal length/maximum aperture combinations available are 280/2.8, 400/2.8, 400/4 (presumably lighter), 560/4, 560/5.6 (same), and 800/5.6. It's better than the Sigma 300-800/5.6 in aperture and optical quality, not length, so the whole "THIS IS LONGER" thing completely missed the point of the challenge of>>181998to>>181996, and the (probably superior to them both) f/4 Zeiss lens here>>182002. (Although the Zeiss is designed for 6x6 and might even be shorter for that, I'm sure it can be adapted. Also, it's not a production lens: it was a multimillion dollar one-off commission from a U.A.E. aristocrat who likes photographing birds with a Hasselblad.) The challenge process there was on speed and image quality, not penis compensation factor.
Plus, I'm sure you could hook a shitton of teleconvertors up to the Leica or a Leica R body up to a telescope. Or teleconvertors to the Zeiss mentioned, or a 'Blad to a telescope.
|