View Single Post
  #19  
Old 23-11-2009, 06:16 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