If you have $30000 spare for a Nikon lens

[kiwi]

and who doesnt these days right ?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Ai-S-1-5-6-13mm-Nikkor-very-rare-lens-/350457102238?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5198deff9e#ht_5061wt_2154

[flame70]

i'm surprised you haven't made an offer D,
oh you have but haven't told her indoors ....

..Guess what 'darling' i was on ebay and grabbed a bargain got 27% off the listed price..
-thats nice sweety... how much was it.

Its a bargain and the postage was free..

Sweety how much.... ?????? ............

Is that AUD or HK??

DARREN GET HERE NOW

[Tommo1965]

if i did have the spare..I wouldnt buy that lens...Id buy this one ...LMAO

http://www.revellphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/vegas1.jpg

[CarlR]

The AUD / USD exchange rate is pretty good at the moment....

[jim]

You can make an offer. Try and knock them down to $25 000. Whatever price you pay, you'll probably make a profit on resale when you get bored playing with it.

[WhoDo]

I'm with Tommo! I'd want something more substantial for 30k! If I brought that little thing home and told the child bride what it cost she'd be on the next plane to France for an extended holiday at my expense! :D

[Keith Young]

The last time one of those 13mm F5.6 sold it only went for US$19,000 on ebay auction. Could it be the same one?... someone could be trying to make a quick profit!

A couple of years ago I saw one of these: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm on Ebay and they wanted US$45,000 for it, they kept re-listing it a few times and I think they reduced it to US$39,000 but I don't think it ever sold.

That Sigma 200-500mm F2.8 is just silly what were they thinking when they designed that atrocity? So what if it is F2.8 and has a zoom? I can't really see a justification for its existence? I'd rather loose a couple of stops and use ISO25600 and just cop the noise rather than lug that thing around!

[exwintech]

Kiwi - There again, if you don't mind full-manual - after just a bit of looking-around - you can likely get the exact equivalent as an M42 Takumar for about $30.00..... :) :D :)

Dave.

[swifty]

Forgive my ignorance but what's the significance of this 13mm f5.6?

For 30k that's a state of the art DSLR kit with everything from ultra wide to mod tele (maybe a super tele included if u skew your selection for the longer focal length stuff).

[soulman]

I got to play with the considerably less rare but still expensive 15mm f/5.6 lens when I worked at the then Nikon distributor, Maxwell Photo Optics, in Melbourne in the late 1970s. It looked similar to this lens, though much smaller, and had the same kind of lens cap. The sales manager got the lens down from Sydney as a favour for one of the photographers from The Age, who were very big customers. They actually allowed me to borrow it for a weekend, which strikes me as extremely generous in retrospect. They were a pretty good bunch of people to work with.

[kiwi]

Re the cost, because it's a rare I suspect more than anything.

[Keith Young]

Hi Swifty, Aparently the Nikkor 13mm F5.6 is the widest full frame non-distorting rectilinear (meaning non-fisheye) lens you can get. Most people get the Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8 these days which pretty much does the same thing and more. I think the 13mm is more of a collectors item because of its rarity rather than something you would actually use... imagine if you dropped it!

[soulman]

Re the cost, because it's a rare I suspect more than anything.I would think so too. There would have been very few of them made. I think the 15mm I used was one of perhaps two imported into Australia.

[swifty]

Hi Swifty, Aparently the Nikkor 13mm F5.6 is the widest full frame non-distorting rectilinear (meaning non-fisheye) lens you can get. Most people get the Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8 these days which pretty much does the same thing and more. I think the 13mm is more of a collectors item because of its rarity rather than something you would actually use... imagine if you dropped it!
Is the Sigma 12-24mm for full frame not also rectilinear?
I also suspect its more of rarity thing. But who knows what the performance is like... maybe its da bomb!! haha

[Keith Young]

Ah yes "was" the widest until the arrival of the Sigma... so the price should come down then shouldn't it?? LOL

[PH005]

Does anyone know what the original retail price was for this lens when it first came out ?

[Keith Young]

US$8200 in 1979 dollars. No wonder they only sold 350! I believe they only made them to order and you had to order it directly from Nikon. You would not find it stocked on the shelf of any camera store.

[fillum]

Ken likes it (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/13mm.htm), maybe that's driving up the price? :D

Could be handy for a L.O.T.E.* ploy. "What's that dear, too expensive? I guess I'll just have to make do with that cheap 400mm f/2.8 then..."


[*L.O.T.E. = Lesser Of Two Evils]



Cheers.

[ving]

i offered $25... wonder if he'll take it :confused013

[swifty]

Anyone see the Nikon patent for a 10mm f4 rectilinear lens on Nikon Rumours? Talk about wide!!!

[kiwi]

after youve paid for this one, the next natural choice would be

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330562471398&ssPageName=ADME:B:FSEL:US:1123

[Roo]

I'm a little confused, how can the lens cost that much, there is a bit of metal, some paint work and glass. I am guessing the money is in the glass to get it to a certain shape and clarity but it costs that much to form the shape?

[Othrelos]

you will be surprised what some people will pay for a piece of history.

I knew a guy that bought a lens hood for a nikkor 5cm f/1.1 for his Nikon SP. There were only 10 hoods for this lens ever made, and this guy forked over $7000 for a slightly used lens hood that still had it's box.