Discussion in 'Nikon' started by henryp, Aug 20, 2014.
From Shutterbug: Whale-Sized Nikon F/2.8 Fisheye Lens on Sale for $96K
As we all know there is a great difference in many cases between what is asked and what is given.
One is reported to have sold for £100,000 ( http://www.gizmag.com/nikkor-fisheye-lens-100k-pounds/22333/ ), but these "private sales" can be manipulated by people trying to justify high asking prices, so I wouldn't bet the house on it.
I recall seeing that lens (or something very similar) at camera stores back in the 1970's.
Shun: Nikon had a much smaller 8mm f/2.8 fisheye which was available in camera stores. The 6mm f/2.8 is about as big as a dinner plate. The only one I ever saw was on display in Nikon House in Manhattan. Working in NYC I used to frequent most of the pro-oriented photo retailers and I do not recall ever seeing one in a store.
Looks to me more like a jellyfish of a lens
When I lived in New Jersey in the 1990's, I used to visit the Nikon House in Rockefeller Center a couple of times a year. I might have seen that lens there, but the one lens I remember there was the 2000mm/f11 mirror lens, overlooking the ice-skating rink and the flag poles. NBC broadcasts the Today Show from those buildings.
In the early 1970's, I was a teenager in Hong Kong, where there is a high concentration of camera stores and jewelry stores in the city center area. I saw that lens on display along with a bunch of exotic lenses at some high-end camera store. It was some 40 years ago so that I don't remember the exact details.
I think I remember reading somewhere that if you used that lens, you had to be careful not to tilt the lens down at all, so that you didn't get your own feet in the picture.
*That's* not a lens...*this* is a lens, mate!
Funny. I was just looking at this one this morning for only 99,000 pounds, wondering if I should switch to Canon...
220 degree angle of view ... http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm
Feet indeed! (let alone tripod legs, etc.)
Nikon innovated quite a lot 40 years ago. Too bad they don't innovate more today.
The article says: "The 6mm lens is designed mainly for scientific and industrial use".
Makes me wonder how many exotic lenses have been damaged, lost, or sold for scrap over the years by organizations such as NASA.
Too bad they don't innovate more today.Indeed, the D180 is pedestrian. The 300mm f/2 is a glorified paperweight. The 24mm f/3.5 PC-E is unworthy of mention as is the 45mm f/2.8 D-ED PC-E Micro. The 135mm f/2 DC is just silly.
Seriously, there's plenty of innovation going on. The era when a company like Nikon had the luxury to dabble in fisheye lenses the size of dinner plates and 2000mm super-teles as big as Arnold Schwarzenegger's thigh has fallen to tough economic realities of the 21st Cen.
My personal opinion.
I suppose if someone approached Nikon wanting a custom one-off lens and was willing to pay the price, Nikon will design and build it. I imagine it was how this fisheye lens came to be.
That fisheye lens was a "product," i.e. not something one or two of a kind specially designed for one particular order. However, clearly it was sold in very low volumes such that you might have to place an order before Nikon would manufacture one for you, not something Henry's store would have in stock.
See Roland Vink's page: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#Fisheye
The serial numbers for the different version may indicate that Nikon had sold several hundred to maybe a bit over a thousand of those lenses.
I still recall that as a teenager, I was quite impressed by that lens. However, in those days, people like me were more impressed by those really long and big lenses.
P.S. Once I was at B&H in the late 1990's. I asked them whether they had the Nikon 300mm/f2.8 AF-S in stock. The sales person checked their computer and told me that they had 21 of those in stock. (Not sure he was supposed to reveal such info to a customer. And I don't remember his name ).
So, if I buy this lens, I could take a selfie from behind the lens? Now if I can just get the wife to let me spend 96k. I would be hesitant to use it for fear of damaging the front element. I wonder if Nikon has a replacement front element lying around the shop?
And hairnet recommended while in use.
To keep ears out of image.
Is there a two-fer price? I might be interested if there were.
"The era when a company like Nikon had the luxury to dabble in fisheye lenses the size of dinner plates and 2000 mm super-teles as big as Arnold Schwarzenegger's thigh has fallen to tough economic realities of the 21st Cen." Henry, I was actually comparing Sigma to Nikon. Imagine, a 300-800 instead of a 800, 120-300 instead of a 300, 18-36 F1.8 instead of 3 F1.8, prime lenses. I didn't even mention the 200-500 F2.8. Can't wait to see what Sigma comes up with next. Nikon, maybe new 300 F4, not so much.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
I read some time ago that the Nikon 6/2.8 was the lens used to play HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I'll have to make due with my 8/2.8 for now.
Veering off topic but a fascinating bit about HAL 9000:
"HAL's point of view shots were created with a Cinerama 160-degree Fairchild-Curtis wide-angle lens. This lens is about 8 inches (20 cm) in diameter, while HAL's prop eye lens is about 3 inches (7.6 cm) in diameter. Stanley Kubrick chose to use the large Fairchild-Curtis lens to shoot the HAL 9000 POV shots because he needed a wide-angle fisheye lens that would fit onto his shooting camera, and this was the only lens at the time that would work. The HAL 9000 faceplate, lens less, was discovered in a junk shop in Paddington, London, in the early 1970s by Chris Randall. Research revealed that the original lens was a Nikon Nikkor 8mm F8. This was found along with the key to HAL's Brain Room. Both items were purchased for ten shillings (£0.50) The collection was sold at a Christies auction in 2010 for £17,500."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000
Actually, I have it on good other authority that the lens that was Hal's prop eye in 2001 was one of the Kenko/Spiratone/+ auxiliary fisheye lens [link, and also link, where the claim is made]:
Interesting, JDM, but there is yet another reference from Pop Photo which claims it to have been a Nikon 8mm/F2.8,
Given that the prop was found in the UK where Stanley Kubrick apparently did much of his work, and Spiratone was a US company based in NY importing Japanese gear, I would tend to believe Wikipedia's claim (of 8mm/F8) since the photo of the original prop shows the lens intact which presumably was dismantled to reveal what it actually was.
I have actually had one of these lenses in my living room. A friend had access to one from work. I hesitate to mention where on the forum but it was an educational/scientific institution. It is a monster. (The lens not the institution.) It gives the impression that it can see inside your brain.
I think I will call him in the AM. He might be interested in this thread. At one point he was trying to buy it from them.
Too bad they don't innovate more today.
The 300mm f/2 is a glorified paperweightHenry, to all intents and purposes, the last ones built for photo work, were made in 1985, almost 30 years ago! Now, if they updated it with AF-S and VR, that might be worthy of recent acclaim...
Any chance to see photos taken with this lens?
I'll take a copy in Series E, 'cause I'm on a budget.
Yeah, but it's only like ....err.....like 9mm on DX!
No, if it was the auxiliary lens, it was Kenko or whatever branding of it, very likely not the Spiratone version. I merely put that in to show what it looked like. It was available all over, not just in the US, so that's not an argument for or against it.
Any chance to see photos taken with this lens?Google "Nikon 6mm f/2.8" and select IMAGES.
Mike, it'd be 4.2mm and f/2.0 on a Speed Booster, but with a narrow 8.4mm field of view. The ideal lens for a Panasonic GM1!
And so is the Nikon Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 AI-S. I wish they making this lens today, seeing images done with it, and I would willing to pay the price, but not the inflated collector price, what they asking for it today. Over 46-50,000.00 dollar?. . . .uh. One of my friend in JHB, SA had one, far back 40 -45 years ago. One of the most beautiful lens, this rectilinear, no distortion wide angle ever made.
. . . . . . . . . . . . This double entry was the result of the stupid, "502 Bad Gateway" messages I receiving all the time in the las two months. And most of the time I'm locked out of PN for hours.
Separate names with a comma.