Lens Construction

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Falcone, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. Falcone

    Falcone Official Mascot Creator

    7 people like this.
  2. Trinity

    Trinity Little Kiki Staff Member

    Cool!, looks like that lens would be Very $$$:think:
     
  3. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    USD$5500 :shock:
     
  4. Trinity

    Trinity Little Kiki Staff Member

    :roll:

    OMG!!!!:shock: Then the camera it goes on...?:haha:
     
  5. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    THAT was a really enlightening tour! Great find, Falcone! :thumb:
     
  6. Falcone

    Falcone Official Mascot Creator

    Thank you all for the rep hehehehe.

    Still I couldn't justify it to be that expensive. :faint: :faint: :faint:
     
  7. Adrian Wong

    Adrian Wong Da Boss Staff Member

    Hehe.. After all, it's just glass! :twisted:
     
  8. zicovsky

    zicovsky Newbie

    wow.. really cool!
     
  9. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    From US$600 to US$6000...
     
  10. peti1212

    peti1212 Newbie

    Wow, this is a really long process. I never tought it took so many machines to make a lens like this. :wicked:
     
  11. Falcone

    Falcone Official Mascot Creator

    One different between Nikon and Canon lens is that Canon Lens(the High end ones) uses fluorite as one of its elements.

    Now fluorite is toxic and there are claims that the process of producing fluorite elements is less environment friendly.

    Some say that fluorite is less susceptible to heat and easily fractured, which is one of the reason with Canon High end lens are in white, and why NASA uses Nikon lens. :faint: :faint: :faint:
     
  12. Chai

    Chai Administrator Staff Member

    I saw that in dpreview forums... :haha:
     
  13. Falcone

    Falcone Official Mascot Creator

    That's why the 'Some say' :faint: :faint: :faint:
     
  14. peaz

    peaz ARP Webmaster Staff Member

    Did a quick research over Google.. looks like few things are true here.

    Fluorite glass is definitely better than ED glass, but by how much? Might be too little to make a difference for people like us. If you need super high resolution like scoping 10-20 lightyears away... perhaps. But just a 200-400mm FOV, urm... maybe the results almost the same.
    Source: http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=383-405-1844

    However it's also true that fluorite glass cracks much easier than ED glass. But then again, we as general users would probably never get to experience that.
    "the expansion rate of optical glass can be low; ie 0.000 001 per degree C.

    Flourite is MUCH higher; say 0.000 01 per degree C.

    Plastics are WAY WAY (SHOUTING!:)higher; say 0.000 14 per degree C." - Source: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E07w

    It might suggest why NASA uses Nikon lens though, in space minus the atmosphere, temp change can be quite extremely crazy.

    Perhaps, maybe NASA worked with Nikon to come up with a fluorite replacement? I'm sure Nikon researched on the idea of fluorite glass too, since Carl Zeiss and a few other telescope glass manufacturers also make use of these glass.
     

Share This Page