World's sharpest tele lens, whatever that means.
They would have got a lot more detail with the Leitz 3400mm f/8 tele lens made c.1940, instead of the relatively tiny Leica 400mm f/2.8 lens.
Or the U.S. 144 inch (3650mm) f/8 refracting lens.
There is a modern Zeiss lens about 16 or 18 inch aperture that is much more capable.
My planetary photos were taken with a native 4,650mm lens, used at 23,000mm f/72.
It's bigger brother is a native 7,000mm.
My friend's lunar crater photo shows at least 6 times smaller detail than the best shown in the video, which is pretty good but nothing special.
One could get equal or better results with a cheaper Celestron 8 or Celestron 9.25.
There was a U.S. lens about 34 inch aperture that surfaced in a Finnish magazine, but went back to being classified.
They would have got a lot more detail with the Leitz 3400mm f/8 tele lens made c.1940, instead of the relatively tiny Leica 400mm f/2.8 lens.
Or the U.S. 144 inch (3650mm) f/8 refracting lens.
There is a modern Zeiss lens about 16 or 18 inch aperture that is much more capable.
My planetary photos were taken with a native 4,650mm lens, used at 23,000mm f/72.
It's bigger brother is a native 7,000mm.
My friend's lunar crater photo shows at least 6 times smaller detail than the best shown in the video, which is pretty good but nothing special.
One could get equal or better results with a cheaper Celestron 8 or Celestron 9.25.
There was a U.S. lens about 34 inch aperture that surfaced in a Finnish magazine, but went back to being classified.