Carl Zeiss creates telephoto lens with 1700mm focal length

This new telephoto lens comes to us from the: "because we can" department. Lens manufacturer Carl Zeiss has just made one of the world's largest telephoto lenses -- it's so big in fact, that you nearly need a construction crane to lift it up. Weighing in at 256 kg (564 lb.), this monstrosity of a lens has a focal length of 1700mm (over 5.5 feet!), a speed of f/4, and has 21x magnification. You can't miss it if you attend this year's Photokina convention in Cologne, Germany starting September 29. Based on the company's press release, it sounds like it was custom-built for a client who wanted to shoot wildlife at a distance on the very high-end Hasselblad 203 FE using 6 x 6 medium format film -- in other words, she/he has some serious cash to spend. No word on if it will be ever made available to the public, but it sounds like Carl Zeiss is open to ideas if you've got a briefcase full of euros to pay for the project, not to mention the means to get it from wherever you are to wherever you actually want to use it without scaring every living thing in your path.

[Carbonize @ Sep 13th 2006 12:30PM]

At last a zoom lens that fits in your pocket. If you are the jolly green giant that is.

[Fuzz @ Sep 13th 2006 12:38PM]

I feel inadequte now.

[General Public @ Sep 13th 2006 12:44PM]

[quote]this monstrosity of a lens has a focal length of 1700 mm (over 5.5 feet long!)[/quote]

hahaha, you guys are a riot, focal length does not have anything to do with the physical length of this lens.

[pbg @ Sep 13th 2006 12:55PM]

to general public - they are translating the focal length into feet, not implying that the lens is that physically long

second, this is weird that this would be custom built for a client. i can imagine the design and manufacturing costs would be laughably high, and it weighs 500+ pounds? Congrats to Zeiss for beating the EF 1200mm, but this thing is a joke. i would love to see a pic though

[Cyrus Farivar @ Sep 13th 2006 1:06PM]

Sorry for the error, we've fixed the headline/story.

[Emma @ Sep 13th 2006 1:15PM]

A canon XL2 hooked up with an EF adapter and a Canon 1200mm lens (owing to CCD crop multiplication x 7) gives you a lens with 8500mm, don't believe it, have a look,

http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php

1700mm Bah™

;o)

[Sean D. @ Sep 13th 2006 1:18PM]

Wildlife photography from the International Space Station, perhaps?

[di @ Sep 13th 2006 1:28PM]

But the difference is, this is an f4 lens! The Canon EF1200 is f5.6 out of the box and with a 2X converter drops another 2 stops of light. Utterly useless in anything but the absolutely brightest of conditions!

[Le @ Sep 13th 2006 1:30PM]

1700mm focal length is very long considering the fact that it was made for a hasselblad medium format camera (6x6cm film).

[mroach @ Sep 13th 2006 1:40PM]

A telescope would be easier.

[cupertino @ Sep 13th 2006 1:40PM]

also "schmidt-cameras" had focal lengths of 2000mm at f/1.5 !!

300 were made. Not a one-off.

[cupertino @ Sep 13th 2006 1:40PM]

I see the mods deleted it but once again:

canon made 2000mm and 5200mm lenses in 1965.

The 5200mm was 6.2 feet long.

[teknomusik @ Sep 13th 2006 2:15PM]

Insane!

[Tom Boucher @ Sep 13th 2006 2:28PM]

How long before the user causes a terrorism scare when seen pointing a that giant white tube at something.

I hope the wildlife doesn't move much, would take quite the tripod to make it easy to swing around. I love how the camera at the end looks like a tiny dot.

[Brandon @ Sep 13th 2006 2:41PM]

I love Canon, but from my research, the 5200mm lens was F14.

I'm not sure about the details here... 1700 f4 versus 5200 f14 ect...

[Universe Man @ Sep 13th 2006 2:46PM]

[Jack Black voice] "It's got like a 2000 mile zoom lens!!"

[phono48 @ Sep 13th 2006 3:44PM]

btw Engadget, f/4 is not a speed, it's the size of the largest aperature on the lens...

[Alden @ Sep 13th 2006 3:55PM]

1800mm at 6x6 format?

Holy shit, with the crop factor of a consumer DSLR, that would be like 12843921874398mm

[Adam @ Sep 13th 2006 4:04PM]

Regarding "speed..."

Lenses with large maximum apertures are typically called "fast" lenses. Those with smaller maximum apertures require more light, and hence, longer shutter speeds. They might be called "slow."

It takes considerably more effort to build a fixed f/2.8 zoom then than a variable f/4 - f/5.6. That's why pro lenses are so expensive.

[theo @ Sep 13th 2006 4:04PM]

second, this is weird that this would be custom built for a client. i can imagine the design and manufacturing costs would be laughably high, and it weighs 500+ pounds?

If you look at the lower picture on Zeiss's site (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/stl_top_med/$File/stl_top_med.jpg) you can see that "Super Tele Lens 4/1700" is translated into Arabic.

For Saudi oil princes, who have always been rich but who have been absolutely rolling in cash since the US helpfully destroyed the Iraqi oil industry, no luxury is too ridiculous or expensive.

It's probably designed to be mounted on a Hummer H-1.

[Brain @ Sep 13th 2006 4:28PM]

my pride...

[Jake @ Sep 13th 2006 4:51PM]

"Canon 1200mm lens (owing to CCD crop multiplication x 7) gives you a lens with 8500mm, don't believe it, have a look"

That is about a videocamera...
This article is about a film/digital camera lens. dSLRs have a 1.5x conversion factor or none if u have a nice body.

[Shivatron @ Sep 13th 2006 4:59PM]

@phono48: While the f-stop is indeed a ratio of the size of the aperture and the focal length of the lens, it is common to refer to the maximum aperture as a "speed" since it directly relates to the light-gathering ability of the lens. (A "fast" lens is one which has a large max. aperture, while a "slow" lens is just the opposite.)

[Bobby @ Sep 13th 2006 5:57PM]

Atleast there are some people who know what they're talking about. Thanks shiva.

Have you seen the tripod that comes with the EF 1200mm made by Canon? How many assistants would you need to move this new beast?

I would be scared of anyone who owns such a thing. lol

[Sam @ Sep 13th 2006 10:48PM]

Hey wow. Nikon made one in the 90's.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm

It only wieghs 16kg. And it's just as useless.

[E @ Sep 13th 2006 11:24PM]

@Sam: f/5.6 @ 1200 mm is nothing compared to this behemoth. Also, most lenses over about 300mm are useless to most people. But the fact that they created one is something to marvel at. *goes back to shooting with his 50mm prime*

[Sam @ Sep 13th 2006 11:39PM]

I understand the difference in the lenses, but the Nikon will zoom up to 1700mm, and yes, the f/stop difference is pretty large.

But. It's kind of like making stretch hummers. It just makes me upset, because I can't even get the damn normal hummer.

And Photography is already soo expensive.

[sjl @ Sep 13th 2006 11:57PM]

@Alden:

No. You're confusing crop factor with focal length. A 1700mm focal length is a 1700mm focal length, regardless of what the crop factor is.

The big difference between this beast and (eg) the Canon EF 1200mm is the circle of light it produces. The 1200mm is designed for a 35mm camera, so it produces a circle of light (the image captured by the sensor) that is approximately 50mm in diameter. This lens is designed for a 6x6 medium format camera, so it has to produce a circle of light approximately 215mm in diameter to cover the entire sensor.

If you were to somehow hook the Zeiss 1700mm telephoto on a 35mm body, it would produce the same field of view as a 1700mm lens on a 35mm body. On the 6x6 body, it produces the same field of view as a 425mm lens would on a 35mm body (approximately).

Or, in other words, as the sensor gets larger, so too must the lenses get longer in order to produce "equivalent" images (in the sense of the field of view). A standard lens (similar field of view to the human eye) on a 35mm body is 50mm. On a 1.6 crop body (like the 350D, aka the Digital Rebel XT), a standard lens would be around 30mm. On the 6x6 body, it would be around 220mm.

The other point: as the sensor gets larger, depth of field becomes smaller. That's why you see all those bellows and so forth on large format cameras; you have to either stop the lens down to f/64 or slower to get decent depth of field, or use tilt techniques to get everything in focus ...

[sjl @ Sep 14th 2006 12:14AM]

Correction: I was reading "6x6" as inches. It's actually cm. (turns out that 6x6 inches would be large format, not medium format.) So the circle of light cast by the lens is around 85mm in diameter, and its field of view is approximately that of a 1000mm lens on a 35mm body. My mistake.

[Doug Augustyn @ Sep 14th 2006 5:33AM]

When will you twits learn the 'euro' does not need an s to be plural? FYI, it shouldn't be capitalized either.

[c2b3 @ Sep 14th 2006 11:59PM]

Uh.. No. Much larger 'telephoto lenses' are in use every day by Astronomers, scientists, sky watchers, UFO conspiracy theorists, etc. Sorry, nothing to see here, move along.

[phono48 @ Sep 15th 2006 12:05AM]

Ah, thanks, Shivatron and Adam.

[Yee Lee @ Sep 29th 2006 12:55PM]

Can anyone tell me how much for this 1700mm in euro or us dollar?
Would Carl Zeiss make an image stabilizer version?
Would Carl Zeiss make teleconvertor and extension tube for this 1700mm?
Would Carl Zeiss make special adaptor for Canon EOS EF mount?
What will be the "???mm" if it work on Canon XL1 without 2x teleconvertor?
Can someone tell me exactly how they come up with the "Holy shit, with the crop factor of a consumer DSLR, that would be like 12843921874398mm"?
Please show the math and for what size of the sensor?
Since I was very young I know for fact that space spy satellite can read every words that same new paper you are holding on earth.
Can someone tell me more detail specification for that type of the lens?
[e-mail]
Thank you very much. Yee Lee

[Magic @ Oct 1st 2006 9:33AM]

Oh for goodness sake, there's too many people who know sod-all about lenses.

To the person who said focal length is related to the length of the lens - YES IT IS. The focal length is the distance from the centre of the main front element to the film sensor with an image in focus. There are various tricks that can be used to artificially enlarge the image such as the use of diffractive optics, but ultimately the quality is affected.

To the person who things the f/4 is not speed... in photographic circles the speed of a lens is refers to its light-gathering ability, hence an f/4 lens will be said to be faster than an f/8 lens.

The f/4 rating also refers to the size of the main front element in ralation to the focal length, hence a 1700mm lens rated at f/4 would have a front aperture 1700mm/4 wide = 425mm

This would be approximately the same as a 1050mm f/4 lens on a 35mm camera.

[mel @ Jan 9th 2007 2:33AM]

hi guys! im a newbie in photography, i think i saw that lens here, if im not mistaken they used it in the doha asian games Qatar. the logo with the arabic script on it is their state/ government logo.