Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM Lens Review

[Bryan Carnathan]

Discuss the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM Lens review ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) - tell us what you think of the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM Lens

[Oren]

Wooow - at first I thought it was a joke.

[alexniedra]

Woah! I wouldn't have thought this would've ever happened!

[EdN]

If it's built like the back end of a 1 ton 4x4, I think that's what you need to pack this baby around. I haven't got the 4x4 but I'd sure like to take some shots with it. Amazing lens!

[Gian Luca]

Bryan, could you test or try also the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 +2x


I saw a test on this lens. I looks amazing and in a way more "affortable". Here ia a link to the test http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_review_test_samples_raw.htm ("http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_200-500_2_8_ex_dg_review_test_samples_raw.htm)

[adam]

Amazing...I never expected to see an even slightly negative review of this lens. I am in awe of your ability to remain objective in the presence of such gear. :)


(The helicopter shot is probably a no-go if you're going for prop blur...you want to get an entire rotation of the top rotor while the shutter is open...1/100 might even be too fast. That's why plane spotters love IS lenses even though we shoot in good light...)

[devsalvi]

how do you carry it around ? say in a park or on a beach(the two most imp places that sprung in my mind, as useful locations for this lens) !? :P

[ShutterbugJohan]

Wow! Did you have to test it for just one day? Sounds like an awful lot of fun! I hope they make a new, smaller, more affordable 1200/8L IS sometime. :-)



how do you carry it around ? Like this! ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2009-03-31_17-06-04) (Looks dangerous to me.) [:^)]

[Alan]

Bryan looks pretty tough there, but let Canon make a 1.4 version, and then let's see if he can lift it! [;)]

[Jon Ruyle]

No wonder the view in the viewfinder was shaky. A lens of this proportions (over 8" aperture) deserves a more substantial mounting. Eg:


http://astro-physics.net/index.htm?products/mounts/3600gto/3600-Wallys16

[George Slusher]

The photo of the woman (your wife?) with the lens on end reminded me of the cute photo of Mikayla with the 500mm f/4L IS lens and your note that there is obviously a "minimum height requirement" to use that lens.


Only one question: considering the price of this lens, how did you keep your hands from shaking when you put it on the tripod? One slip and there goes the house! [:$]

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

It was $99 grands a year ago, it's now $120 grands, I should have bought it then [:)]

[Benjamin]

[:)] That was unexpected - a 1200/5.6L lens review. As nice as ever before! Thanks Bryan!

[airfang]

I have actually known about the existence of this lens for a while. And I was actually wondering why Bryan did not have the review for this lens (because he seems to have reviewed all the Canon EF lenses).


This lens is the ultimate gear for certain tasks as Bryan suggested...


Otherwise, this lens is still an awesome gear to people who don't really need it (you don't need to buy it, only to awe)


Also, you definitely need to have this lens if you are a (wealthy/enthusiastic) lens collector :D





Wondering when Bryan would post the Canon EF 50 f/1.0 L review (this seems to be the only one missing now)

[piiooo]

It was $99 grands a year ago, it's now $120 grands, I should have bought it then /emoticons/emotion-1.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I have one of those, but I don't use it too much because it is just too bulky. I usemy 800L or 600Linstead. The 1200 sits in my garage right between my 2010 Ferrari (which is OK) and my 2008 Porshe (which is old and ugly and I don't drive it that much). Anyway, if you're interested, I can sell it to you, for,say80G, because it is already slightly (twice) used. You can e-mail me at ... what's that noise? Crap, it's my alarm clock... Time to get up and goto work...

[Daniel Browning]

Wow! What an awesome review. I love the rocket-launcher technique.


Jim Jannard, billionaire owner of RED Digital Cinema, had the 1200mm f/5.6 among his collection (one of the most extensive camera/lens collections in the world), but he sold it in 2008 ("http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=329801&amp;postcount=12).

[Dallasphotog]

The EF1200MM is like some sort of mythical beast. This really truly is a lens for the "agency" that has everything. Can you imagine unpacking this baby at the kids soccer games!!!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Dallas, actually you don't need the 1200 f/5.6 to impress folks at the kids soccer game, anything bigger than the 70-200 f/2.8 will be enough to draw attention. Imagine upacking this baby at the local wildlife reserve when you're alwayssurrounded byfolks with 400 f/2.8,500, 600 and 800. My self esteem isforever hurt by my little 400 f/5.6L [:(] [:'(] [:(]....just kidding


I hope lensrental would have it in a couple of days, I want to rent it.


P.S Thanks Bryan for reviewing the lens.

[specialfx]

I got to try this bad boy once at a Canon Expo in Hong Kong


http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimluu/326060988/in/set-72157594426294591/ ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimluu/326060988/in/set-72157594426294591/)


Incredible Lens!

[naturegrapher]

I think I will just wait for the IS version... hehehehe

[Jon Ruyle]

I got to try this bad boy once at a Canon Expo in Hong Kong


http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimluu/326060988/in/set-72157594426294591/ ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimluu/326060988/in/set-72157594426294591/)





Now *that* is a serious tripod head. Anyone know what the heck it is? (Um, yeah. The lens is cool too. [:)])

[devsalvi]

that's funny [:D]

[alexniedra]

That IS a serious tripod head. Usually used for Canon's long television lenses - Think football, baseball, etc.

[alexniedra]

But the deposit!!!

[Daniel Browning]

Now *that* is a serious tripod head. Anyone know what the heck it is?


It's probably not built for still photography, but moving images; looks like Sachtler to me. Tripods for cinema and primetime TV can easily go up to $30,000 by themselves, but they move smoothly with over 100 pounds of gear.

[Bryan Carnathan]

Don't worry everyone, I wiped all of the drool off the lens when I was finished.


EDN - The "Canon Truck Bed Mount" is optional.


Adam - Sometimes you need to un-justify a desired purchase. :)


Adam &amp; Naturegrapher - I too plan to wait for the IS version.


Gian - The Sigma would be fun to spend some time with someday. I'll have to talk too Sigma about that one.


Devsalvi - I tried the camera neck strap, but it was not a great solution.


George - I wasn't too nervous - it was not mine. :)


ShutterbugJohan - Only part of an afternoon. But worth every minute of the 8 hour round trip.


Sinh - I passed your request on to Roger. :)


Jon - I'll pass your suggestion on to B&amp;H. :)


Alan - Bring it on!

[Jon Ruyle]

It's probably not built for still photography, but moving images; looks like Sachtler to me.


Video, surely. I read somewhere that wimberly claims their tripod head will work for any canon lens, but this might be pushing it.

[Bob]

Bryan,


After your review - the 800mm croped to 1200mm sounds the best way to go, but I'm still waiting for the 200mm - 400mm zoom.

[Stephen Probert]

That's it, I guess I have to join the "agency." I don't think it is humanly possible for me to give you any useful feedback onthatlens, Bryan.All I can say is wow. I agree, though, that I would ratherhave the 800mm,just for usefulness.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Can you indentify faces from 1 mile with the 800mm? Maybe with extenders?


And congratulations to Mr. Carnathan, as I believe that it is the first review of this lens. (Wikipedia already has a link to the review on their 1200mm page.) ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens)

[George Slusher]

Dallas, actually you don't need the 1200 f/5.6 to impress folks at the kids soccer game, anything bigger than the 70-200 f/2.8 will be enough to draw attention. Imagine upacking this baby at the local wildlife reserve when you're alwayssurrounded byfolks with 400 f/2.8,500, 600 and 800. My self esteem isforever hurt by my little 400 f/5.6L /emoticons/emotion-6.gif [:'(] /emoticons/emotion-6.gif....just kidding


I know how you feel. I was at a horse show a few weekends ago, using my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, when I noticed a guy with a honking-big white lens on a tripod. It was a 400mm f/2.8L IS (cost: $6,800). He said that it was really too long for that venue--the 300mm f/2.8L IS (only $4,100) would have been better, but he doesn't have the 300mm. Anyone who does have both of those lenses is a pro, stinking rich, or a true fanatic. (Bryan, are you listening? [:D] That guy was not a pro, but he said that he does shoot a lot of sports. There were a lot of 70-200mm f/2.8L lenses around. Some, I could tell, were IS verisons. One woman had a 1D--can tell by the sound!--with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS--on a monopod. I'm not sure why the monopod. (I didn't ask her.) The IS will take care of most camera shake and, anyway, the shutter speeds one needs to use to stop the horses' motion would be high enough to get good shots. I did see some of her shots, over her shoulder, sort of, on her laptop. They were all underexposed by 2 stops or more--thus, her shutter speed was even higher. She said that she could "fix that" in Photoshop.


One problem I've noted with monopod users is that a lot of them end up tilting the camera without realizing it as they follow the horse. There is a way to prevent that, but that's for another topic.

[George Slusher]

In case you haven't seen it, B&amp;H has a video ("http://link.bhphotovideo.com/r/CP8Q4Z/U2LW/JFEOE/V8UL4/CWBK5/9A/h) of Bryan reviewing this lens.

[Daniel Browning]

In case you haven't seen it, B&amp;H has a video ("http://link.bhphotovideo.com/r/CP8Q4Z/U2LW/JFEOE/V8UL4/CWBK5/9A/h) of Bryan reviewing this lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Cool, thanks! It was fun as well as informative (look how easy it is to rotate the camera, wow).

[40Doodle]

Incredible...I'm stunned and did not know Canon made this lens. Really liked the video and the history behind the lens as well!


Rick

[Sean Setters]

Thanks George for the link to the video...very entertaining. Great to see Bryan doing what he loves to do!

[Iguide]

Hi Brian:





Any chance you could review the Sigma<span class="text18"]APO 300-800 F5.6 EX DG HSM, or the <span class="text18"]APO 800mm f5.6 EX DG HSM? I would suspect that they are not as sharp as their Canon counterparts, but would like your view before I spend $10,000 + or so.





Thank you.

[George Slusher]

While you're waiting for Bryan's review, check others. I did a Google searchon "Sigma 300-800mm review" and found at least 5 good reviews and discussions. It seems to deserve the nickname, "Sigmonster," because of its weight (almost 13 lbs).

[Iguide]

Thank you George!!

[Iguide]

After reading the different reviews of the "Sigmonster" I found for myself that this review was the most helpful, by Bill Majoros.


http://www.billmajoros.com/photoalbum/categories/new/Canon600/windows/index.html





A second review I found also very helpful was from Romy Ocon from my wife's native land of the Philippines, where we travel &amp; I photograph every couple of winters.


http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/58879465/original





You can see that both test have similarity but there does seem to be some differnce's in equipment used so that has to be taken into account. Ofcorse I could be wrong on that assement and I just got things confused after going through all of the reviews. After reading these two my inpression is that the Canon Prime lens's are a bit sharper with IS and focusing limitor while the Sigmonster does not have either. If you want the flexibility of a zoom of this size the Sigmonster seems to be favored, but I would personaly tend to lean towards the Canon lens.


I would still like to see a review by Brian, as I like his assement methods compared to many others that are not so deliberate in metodology, which he ofcourse is!!

[Maleko]

imagine that on a 1.6 crop body.... [:|]

[Iguide]

Maleko ("../members/Maleko/default.aspx)





I am not 100% sure, but I think at least some of Romy's is shot on a 1.6 crop body, the 40D. I think. Check it out.

[Jon Ruyle]

imagine that on a 1.6 crop body.... /emoticons/emotion-8.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





No need to imagine. Just download one of the sample pics from Bryan's gallery and crop it. [;)]