Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 17-11-2009, 01:24 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
Oh my .... I wish I the money , spotted this gem on Ebay .... drooling .....

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Canon-EF-400m...item518e27d72d

Would be a great astroimaging lens , but way outside my budget , probably for ever.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17-11-2009, 03:06 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
It's a nice lens. Not the Mark II IS though, which is really handy with such a large lens. I'd be tempted more to go with the 500mm f4 for myself - better for motorsport and birding, both of which interest me.

AU 3200 already with 17 bids...probably will go for around 7k, a bit pricey for a first gen unit...

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17-11-2009, 03:09 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Posts: 12,430
Yea man I have my eye on that one as well, it is the second time he has listed it, it would be a nice one next my collection.

No it wont go for 7K I reckon, as I bought a 500mm F/4 in pristine condition, for 6200.00, I reckon If you wanted it 6000.00 would pull it up, make him an offer guys

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17-11-2009, 03:50 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,090
Humm...400mm F 2.8. cool. Auction price just went up by $50....I wonder who placed a bid
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-11-2009, 04:13 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
It's EBay...shilling abounds...it'll go up. I've seen a used 85mm f1.8 lens go for more than a new one (by an extra $100) a few years back...

Dave

Quote:
Originally Posted by leon View Post
Yea man I have my eye on that one as well, it is the second time he has listed it, it would be a nice one next my collection.

No it wont go for 7K I reckon, as I bought a 500mm F/4 in pristine condition, for 6200.00, I reckon If you wanted it 6000.00 would pull it up, make him an offer guys

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-11-2009, 10:18 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
Someone scored it for AU $4,561.00.

I already have a 300mm f2.8 (a Tamron Adapt2all model) , and there is not a lot to be gained between 400mm f2.8 L and a 300mm f2.8 LD , and the EF is not important in astronomical imaging.

Nor did I pay several thousand dollars for my lens (bought secondhand via Ebay from a genuine camera shop in the USA).

I'll never be able to spend thousands of dollars on ONE LENS.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-11-2009, 11:53 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
That's less than 50% off retail value. Damn.

Congratulations, successful purchaser. You have just bought one of the greatest lenses ever built.

Comparing an L-series lens, deemed to be one of Canon's finest to a Tamron lens...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19-11-2009, 06:41 AM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Cheer up Ian..you can buy a brand new Takahashi E180ED 500mm f2.8 astrograph for only a little more!

Did anyone remember seeing a supposedly mint condition 200 1.8EF lens advertised for $3000 in the trading post last year. Perhaps it was stolen

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19-11-2009, 01:56 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
I'd rather have a AG14 (would be 3kg lighter in weight than my existing 10" f4.66 astrograph with the PVC tube) so the Atlux can handle it.

Or if I really lost the plot a AG16 + bigger GEM (though at 23kg the Atlux can handle it + the OAG + guider + 40D).

Neither of these are likely to be viable for me for the foreseeable future unless a big pile of $ falls on me.

There was a EF 200mm f2 L USM for sale secondhand on Ebay a week or two ago.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 19-11-2009, 02:31 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
It is not just the optics you are paying for. It is a lens that focusses faster and more silently than you can ever imagine. The Bokeh is second to none. My 300mm F2.8L is just amazing for terrestial images. Spider webs at fourty feet?

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 22-11-2009, 07:38 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,801
Yeah, I don't think I could bring myself to take my big L glass outside.. the little 70-200 F/4L and the 135 F/2L, sure, no worries, strap it to the mount and have a ball.. the 300 F/2.8L, 400 F/2.8L DO and 500 F/4L, not a chance in hell... Too big an investment to have sitting outside collecting dew etc... Yes, you have to use these things, yes, they are insured, but I didn't buy them with astronomy in mind, so I won't use them for it.

If I were to find one of the rare Canon 200 F/1.8L's, I would be buying that purely for astro imaging, and hence would have no problems using it for such. It would however be insured according.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 22-11-2009, 09:39 PM
Benny L (Ben)
Registered User

Benny L is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carmel - Perth Hills
Posts: 303
you cant go wrong for $4500! I bought one new for 12K a couple of years ago :/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 23-11-2009, 02:21 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
It is not just the optics you are paying for. It is a lens that focusses faster and more silently than you can ever imagine. The Bokeh is second to none. My 300mm F2.8L is just amazing for terrestial images. Spider webs at fourty feet?

Bert
So's my Tamron LD 300mm f2.8 on the 40D .... so what if it's manual focus and I need to set apeture manually .... not a big deal or an inconvenience to me in anyway.

I don't see how paying several thousand dollars for a canon EF L (IS) USM lens is value for money .... and never will .
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 23-11-2009, 02:26 PM
Ian Robinson
Registered User

Ian Robinson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 2,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN View Post
Yeah, I don't think I could bring myself to take my big L glass outside.. the little 70-200 F/4L and the 135 F/2L, sure, no worries, strap it to the mount and have a ball.. the 300 F/2.8L, 400 F/2.8L DO and 500 F/4L, not a chance in hell... Too big an investment to have sitting outside collecting dew etc... Yes, you have to use these things, yes, they are insured, but I didn't buy them with astronomy in mind, so I won't use them for it.

If I were to find one of the rare Canon 200 F/1.8L's, I would be buying that purely for astro imaging, and hence would have no problems using it for such. It would however be insured according.
And if you are using your big L glasses for semipro or pro photography , the ATO payed for them ultimately as you will have depreciated them over a few years as "work expenses" / tools & equipment expenses.

For hobbyist use , there is no such way of getting back the cost over time.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23-11-2009, 02:33 PM
Benny L (Ben)
Registered User

Benny L is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carmel - Perth Hills
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Robinson View Post
And if you are using your big L glasses for semipro or pro photography , the ATO payed for them ultimately as you will have depreciated them over a few years as "work expenses" / tools & equipment expenses.

For hobbyist use , there is no such way of getting back the cost over time.
Very True Just to stir the pot my astro gear comes off in tax too one of the perks of taking pics for a living
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23-11-2009, 02:36 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Everything is about money for you, isn't it?

I've never seen someone complain so bitterly about things they can't afford but would like to own.

In essence, what you're saying is that anyone who has INVESTED in quality glass is a fool because they could have bought a cheaper version of the lens by a different manufacturer, regardless of the quality differences.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23-11-2009, 03:25 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
I consider myself a caretaker of my quality Canon glass. I get to use it and it does not depreciate as quickly as most other possessions. In fact I can sell my 300mm F2.8L for more than I paid for it.

There is no point having it if you do not use it.

I use my lens in rain sleet dust sand and snow as it is fully sealed! A little bit of dew is nothing!

Salt water is not even a problem if it is connected to a pro canon camera. The front element is an optical flat that protects the carefully figured lenses inside. This is relatively cheap to to replace.

What you are paying for is a single crystal of Magnesium Fluoride as the main front lens element and far more.


Bert
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 23-11-2009, 03:33 PM
TrevorW
Registered User

TrevorW is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 7,852
make the best of what you can afford don't lament what you can't
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 23-11-2009, 05:16 PM
Waxing_Gibbous's Avatar
Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)
Grumpy Old Man-Child

Waxing_Gibbous is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Gippsland
Posts: 1,768
I.m tempted to say "damn..I missed it!", but nnestly lugging around 15- odd kgs of glass is no longer my style.
Whoever paid $4500 got a very sweet deal. Most non-IS lenses were made with real honest-to-goodness CaFl2, as were some runs of ISes. Not for any quality reason, just the intro. of IS technology co-incided with new regs on toxic waste and crud.
Anyway this lens is way too heavy to hand-hold for more than a shot or two, so Image Stabilisation is pretty redundant. It needs a mono/tripod.

A couple of years back you could've bought the FD version (non-autofocus)
for peanuts. An absolutely mint one went on flea-bay for $1100!
But then people figured out: "Hey! This'd make a great telescope. No skanky ole AP 160 is gonna beat this honker!!!
And they were right! So now you'd probably have to pay around $3K.
Anyway. Best wishes to whoever got it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 23-11-2009, 05:57 PM
Benny L (Ben)
Registered User

Benny L is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carmel - Perth Hills
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous View Post
Anyway this lens is way too heavy to hand-hold for more than a shot or two, so Image Stabilisation is pretty redundant. It needs a mono/tripod.
.
I've shot a full weekend of motorsport, hand-held with mine.. I find a mono-pod too restrictive wasn't too bad and the moose like forearms i got afterwards were a bonus
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement