I… know someone who might buy this…
How do I attach it to my iPhone?
With an iPhone adapter.
I’ve been looking for a way to take pictures of my pores with my 600-meter selfie stick.
It’s a tracking telescope, not a lens. Schmidt-Cassegrain is the type of telescope built by just about everyone who makes telescopes. An equivalent modern device could be had from Meade, but probably not at anywhere near the quality.
That’s a 13in telescope. For half to a third of the asking price, you could get a 14in-16in telescope from Meade or Celestron - and for that kind of money, you’d also get a very good computer-controlled mount/tripod, image capturing hardware and maybe even a ToughBook.
I suspect that multi-coating and non-spherical grinding technology has progressed immensely in the (what?) forty years since that one was built. As far as it being “one of the biggest lenses ever”, uh, really? Didn’t Meade used to sell a 20in lens?
If you wanted to spend that kind of money, I’d go with Takahashi. Here are a couple that would give similar performance at a bargain price:
Focal length 2400, f 5.9
Focal length 2900, f 9.9
There are other differences, but these are quality optics worth having.
But, but… NASA! Saturn V! History!
It sold, btw.
Is Saturn V for sale on ebay, too?
I love word art! So nice to look at!
You’d think for 33k you’d at least get a readable ebay listing?
The difference between a telescope and a lens isn’t really significant, optically. The film-size that the camera part used is standard enough. and an 80mm lens would give an ordinary image on that film. It’s the angle of view. 50mm on 35mm stills is about the same. It would be a 1600mm lens for 35mm, which is unusual, and the lens aperture is hard to achieve. You could get similar focal length fairly cheaply, but the aperture would be less than f16. Lens focal length and aperture together are serious engineering
It’s a big lens. You can only describe it with large fonts.
Not to mention, photographs of the lens produce large JPGs.
Lenses let the light pass through the glass. This item uses mirrors instead of lenses, to allow for a much larger diameter with less weight and length. Your repeated reference to it as a lens is rather confusing, as it’s not a lens.
Make sure you also tell this to Mark, and aerozeiss2, and Reuters, and…
I work in the astronomy department at the local university. We are SO used to this mistake. Yet we engineers still refer to the astronomers as “astrologers”.
In the age of automated telescopes, aren’t their controllers’ role to come in the morning and review the logs?
Sometimes we have to change the felt pads on the Ouija board.