# World's most expensive lens



## pwp (Aug 28, 2012)

Don't sweat it over the cost of the 400 f/2.8isII. This one checks out at over $2 million.
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/08/27/the-worlds-most-expensive-camera-lens/#more-70978
Of course, it's a Leica...

-PW


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 28, 2012)

pwp said:


> Don't sweat it over the cost of the 400 f/2.8isII. This one checks out at over $2 million.
> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/08/27/the-worlds-most-expensive-camera-lens/#more-70978
> Of course, it's a Leica...
> 
> -PW


 
It doesn't hold a candle in price to the camera lenses used on military spy satellites, or on the Curiosity Martain rover. I doubt if its in 100th place.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 28, 2012)

Hubble would have to be near the top of the list, too. At $2.5b to construct, then all of the maintenane and the big upgrade a couple of years ago, I think it has cost almost $7b. But it does get some spectacular shots.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 28, 2012)

If you count telescopes and microscopes, its down to about #10,000.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 28, 2012)

If I had that lens I could stay between the football stadium and soccer field and shoot both games from the same location


----------



## candyman (Aug 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> If I had that lens I could stay between the football stadium and soccer field and shoot both games from the same location


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 28, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> If I had that lens I could stay between the football stadium and soccer field and shoot both games from the same location



The Canon 1200mm and 1.4x extender might be a better choice for sports - It has autofocus.


----------



## nubu (Aug 28, 2012)

I am much more impressed by this beauty! http://www.dpreview.com/news/2006/10/1/zeiss1700f4


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 28, 2012)

This was probably not the most expensive but I think that keeping it _running_ may cost some money  As Hubble came here into play, I thought I'd share this liquid mirror telescope (mercury) 

Liquid mirror telescope


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 28, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Hubble would have to be near the top of the list, too. At $2.5b to construct, then all of the maintenane and the big upgrade a couple of years ago, I think it has cost almost $7b. But it does get some spectacular shots.



The lens itself is much cheaper; the expensive part of the Hubble was its delivery (no free shipping here), and some repair work under warranty....


----------



## Danielle (Aug 28, 2012)

Personally I don't understand how a Leica APO-Telyt-R 1:5.6/1600mm would be worth 2.79 million dollars. Thats really in WTF territory for me. Unless all the glass is sapphire crystal or something ridiculous.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Aug 28, 2012)

The customer reviews for the sigma 200-500 seem to make it the better choice.


----------



## Vossie (Aug 28, 2012)

Danielle said:


> Personally I don't understand how a Leica APO-Telyt-R 1:5.6/1600mm would be worth 2.79 million dollars. Thats really in WTF territory for me. Unless all the glass is sapphire crystal or something ridiculous.



The thing that makes it so expensive is that this is a one-off custom built lens (as you could read in the linked article). All the development costs will be included in that price.


----------



## Danielle (Aug 28, 2012)

Did I seriously miss that? Ha, wow.

Publicity stunt perhaps.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 28, 2012)

The Canon EF 3000 is not much cheaper.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 28, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > If I had that lens I could stay between the football stadium and soccer field and shoot both games from the same location
> ...



Haha!!


----------



## emag (Aug 28, 2012)

$2.06 million, Mercedes camera 'case'........and all he did was take pictures of his cat ;D


----------

