For all of you "Lusters"......

[Retief]

Not only practical, but a true piece of history as well. I expect to see one of our members snatch this one up "Toots-Sweet" :lol: :wink:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48556&item=7519520072&rd=1

And a real bargain to boot.....

 

[Gale]

Bill,

I think this purchase of yours is Ideal..


rofl.....

 

[sbuttrick]

Hey Bill,

I think you should buy one. If you do, can I use it? Oh, I received the Sidekick today and it looks great...thanks. Now I only need my D2x back.

Regards,

 

[Preston]

HOLY COW that thing is HUGE. I think that perhaps one of the designers was compensating for something!

 

[Harry S.]

As pointed out before (by Ron and by Bjorn, I guess) this is not the original 300/2.0, but a reproduction - a well crafted one, though.
The original seems almost impossible to find nowadays.
But, just the appearance of this monster is a temptation
Cheers

 

[eng45ine]

I, for one, would love it and give it a great home. Heck, I'd even give it it's own bedroom. I can only imagine the great low-light images it takes.

 

[Retief]

Well, folks, it is still up for sale, no bids yet, you can be the first :lol:

I had a friend of mine who bid on a Russian MIG that was up for sale on eBay a couple of years ago. He just wanted to bid a LOT of money....

Gale, sorry, this lens is way too short for photographing Buzzards and Vultures. Now, if it was a 500mm F2, I'd snap it up in an instant....... :wink:

Scott, glad the Sidekick arrived, I tried to rip off all of the "Opened by US Customs tape" for you. As to the lens, it is just too short for me, sorry....

Preston, you should be ashamed of yourself :lol: :lol: :lol:

Harry, can you point me to the info on to "original" and what might be different? I'm just curious. If nothing else you could easily beat Bigfoot off with one of these things :wink:

Frank, if I were to seriously even TALK about this, my wife would give ME a new bedroom, the shed I just built in the backyard :lol:

 

[Harry S.]

Bill, since I never considered buying this lens I didn't worry too much about the difference. Also, I have not bookmarked the comment I read somewhere else.
You can find some info on the original one on Bjorn Rorslett's website
http://www.naturfotograf.com
or you may contact Bjorn directly. I am sure also Ron Reznick has something to say on that lens, because I think it was him who pointed out what I mentioned in my earlier reply.

Anyway, I'm sure brandishing this lens would give you a quite intimidating appearance :lol:

 

[nfoto]

Being an owner of a 300/2 Nikkor, the *real* one, I can just tell you that this lens will hurt you in many more ways than just your bank account. It is so heavy and unwieldly to carry that you hardly avoid getting bruises everywhere when you haul it with you into the field. True, you could capture magic moments hours earlier than other people in the morning, but with today's DSLRs having ISO 100-200 sensitivity as their optimum, compared to ISO 50 or 64 in the ancient silver halide days, the advantage of this lens basically has disappeared. If you need f/2 speed, purchase the 200/2 VR instead. It even is sharper than the legendary 300/2.

 

[Retief]

Being an owner of a 300/2 Nikkor, the *real* one, I can just tell you that this lens will hurt you in many more ways than just your bank account. It is so heavy and unwieldly to carry that you hardly avoid getting bruises everywhere when you haul it with you into the field. True, you could capture magic moments hours earlier than other people in the morning, but with today's DSLRs having ISO 100-200 sensitivity as their optimum, compared to ISO 50 or 64 in the ancient silver halide days, the advantage of this lens basically has disappeared. If you need f/2 speed, purchase the 200/2 VR instead. It even is sharper than the legendary 300/2.

Welcome! I had not realized that you had joined our illustrious little, well it WAS little way back 3 months ago :wink: , group.

Out of curiousity, is there any difference between the "original" and this one, and how would you tell? I put the 200/2 on my D2H at a local shop a few weeks ago, what a sweet lens that is. I was at about a 45 degree angle to a sign on the cash register, maybe about 6-7 feet away, and it was really funny to see how sharp the focus point was, and how shallow the DOF. An easy lens to hand-hold as well.

Since you are a fellow "in the know", how long do you think I will have to wait for Nikon to realease a 1-1500mm f1.0 zoom for $1500 USD? Oh, and the weight should be less than 10lbs as well. I would expect that this would be an AFS-DX-G-VR as well :wink:

Thanks for the info. I just find it fascinating when I see a lens like this. Perhaps when I was in my 20's I would not have been concerned regarding the weight, but given that my 20's are a few decades behind me now.........

 

[nfoto]

The Tochigi Nikon 300/2 obvious has a different optical formula, a 12/9 designed compared to the original 11/8. It weighs even more, too.

As to Bill's dream zoom, it will never come true.

 

[Retief]

The Tochigi Nikon 300/2 obvious has a different optical formula, a 12/9 designed compared to the original 11/8. It weighs even more, too.

As to Bill's dream zoom, it will never come true.

Bjorn, I had heard from the 3rd cousin of the nephew of the cousin of the butler to the gardener who knows the pool cleaner for the president of Nikon that this lens was a "sure thing" and would be coming our "real soon now". Sounds like a need a new source, eh :?: :?: :?: Or maybe I heard it at DPReview :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey, I figure if you are going to dream, don't mess around.....

So, was I wrong on the price or what?

 

[nfoto]

On all aspects. You didn't include the price of the mandatory lorry needed to haul this contraption around. It probably will weigh 10 tons or more. AF will burn your camera's motor, so only MF is possible. For this to take place, you need a crew of minimum two body-builders to turn the focusing collar.

 

[Harry S.]

On all aspects. You didn't include the price of the mandatory lorry needed to haul this contraption around. It probably will weigh 10 tons or more. AF will burn your camera's motor, so only MF is possible. For this to take place, you need a crew of minimum two body-builders to turn the focusing collar.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Retief]

On all aspects. You didn't include the price of the mandatory lorry needed to haul this contraption around. It probably will weigh 10 tons or more. AF will burn your camera's motor, so only MF is possible. For this to take place, you need a crew of minimum two body-builders to turn the focusing collar.

Well, darnit, that's what I get for trusting such a reliable source. Thanks for saving me the money on that new truck, er, lorry....... :wink:

 

[papa85]

I'm only short $9,899.99. Have to brake open the piggy bank.LOL