There is a 1200mm for auction per this article. Has always been a dream lens for me. If in the future I was ever in a position to buy this lens somehow someway. I 100% would.
https://petapixel.com/2021/06/07/thi...m-f-5-6l-lens/
Printable View
There is a 1200mm for auction per this article. Has always been a dream lens for me. If in the future I was ever in a position to buy this lens somehow someway. I 100% would.
https://petapixel.com/2021/06/07/thi...m-f-5-6l-lens/
It would be fun to try and to see what the images would be like but you would need two roadies to pack it around for you, not to mention trying to travel with such a beast......certainly not in the affordable category or the practical category but you probably wouldn't lose money on it. I wonder if Canon still supports it in terms of service and repair?
Ok. I did get excited when I saw the serial # "204" pop up. There are not many of those out there.
While there are definite times and places for such a lens, over time I have grown to appreciate all the issues with more reach beyond a certain point. Not only the size/weight, but anything that will bend light (different air densities, etc) and, you know, curvature of the earth.
With no IS it would be extremely hard to get a sharp picture hand held.
I'd like to see somebody -- anybody -- even try to hand hold it!Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
According to published specs it weighs 36.37 pounds ..... maybe someone with strong arms could fire one or two shots:cool:
It is for extremely shy people who still need a head shot portrait. I know b it is a niche market....but could be lucrative :)
1200mm is long, but not that ridiculous. Certainly not nearly as insane as the extreme size and weight would suggest. I don't bird right now much simply because I have not modified the mount and remove the aperture lever of my lens to not make contact with my pins of my body. But when I did 1200mm (600mm, 2X) was very useful and not even that long for wild birds. Even then I still have to stock them for a long time since they are just so skittish. I used it a lot for an insurance shot, I could get it with 1200mm and then try and get it with 600mm. Sometimes I can get close enough sometimes not.
Weight and size? It's not exactly meant for everyone, but I for one do not mind. It serves a purpose, and that is having an extremely wide aperture for the focal length. At least for me.
Not that I'm a world class birder, but one can dream right?!:D
I agree completely that 1200mm focal length is very useful for bird photography but rather than a 1200mm prime lens I feel there are more practical ways to achieve similar performance.
For example, with the R5 you could use a 600mm f/4 lens with a 1.4 teleconverter to get 840mm f/5.6.....then engage the 1.6 crop mode and you will achieve a field of view equivalent to a 1344mm f/5.6 lens with image stabilization and the image will still have plenty of pixels on the subject for excellent image quality.
If you want to go one step further and are willing to shoot at f/8 ..... the 600mm f/4 + 2X TC + 1.6 crop mode would have a field of view equivalent to 1920mm @ f/8
Using good technique with the Canon 600mm f/4L and the version III teleconverters the image quality is still excellent.
Down the road I suspect we will see the R1 with a sensor in the 80 megapixel range and then crop mode will produce even better IQ.
For me personally, I would not be able to hike or stalk a skittish bird with a rig that weighs over 40 pounds .... maybe 25 years ago but not now:rolleyes:
Heck, even the current 600mm f/4 is not that easy to deal with and for most hand holding I prefer the RF 100-500mm which has great IQ (but not quite on par with the 600mm prime)
Weight and portability is why I am hoping they will come out with a RF 600mm f/4 DO lens!
Just out of my own curiosity and in case anyone else might be interested, I took these today as a sort of demo to show what images are like at 1200mm and 1920mm (field of view equivalent) using a 600mm f/4 lens with a 2X converter and the 1.6 Crop mode of the R5.
These images were converted from RAW in DPP4 and with no adjustments sent to photoshop where I added the text. They are uncropped images. The only processing performed was Topaz Denoise AI, although they looked really good without it, to make the background somewhat smoother.
https://joeleadephotography.zenfolio...14277695-5.jpg
https://joeleadephotography.zenfolio...14277185-5.jpg
https://joeleadephotography.zenfolio...14261701-5.jpg
https://joeleadephotography.zenfolio...14260047-5.jpg
A couple more examples (one at very high iso)
https://joeleadephotography.zenfolio...14643317-5.jpg
https://joeleadephotography.zenfolio...14670553-5.jpg
Those look great at least on my phone. I used 1200mm on my 60D back in the day quite a bit. That is a lot of focal length. But amazing how short it feels when you are photographing skittish birds. Obviously it is always better to be able to get closer. But sometimes not having to stalk some for 4 hours is also nice. But I can definitely tell there is a different compression to the shots. Almost portrait like.
And also the 1200mm f/5.6 is not meant nessarily to replace every and all super telephoto uses. Part of it is simply (Again, for me) is the rarity and perhaps an obsession for fast lenses. I love that kind of stuff and that is why I would love something like the 1200. Same reason why I love the 50mm f/1.0 L, 85mm f/1.2 ect. I love extremely fast lenses. Doesn't mean I don't stop them down when need be or use other lenses. Or that there are more practical lenses out there. But they serve a niche use and used to their strength can create awesome shots.
Trying to look at the 1200mm as a viable and practical tool is the wrong way to look at it. Think of it as an extreme luxury/tool and know it takes commitment to use something like this. Like a race car.
I'm also the type of guy that if givin the choice would daily a full on drift/race car to work and back. 6 point harness and roll cage and all. I'm just that way.:D
I think what I am saying it takes a specific kind of crazy to pay that much for a lens and even more specific type of crazy to actually use it in a practical way like birding. And I'm just crazy enough to want to do both and love it.
Not sure there is "right" or "wrong" way to look at it but I totally get your view point! I would concur that this lens is a "extreme luxury"
I can see how it would be analogous to the Ferrari Enzo you would love to have as a daily driver and if that's what you like I say go for it:o
My approach ( again not wrong or right ) would be to see if I could achieve similar performance with gear that represents a little more practical, user friendly and economical approach. Especially if I can get close with the gear I currently own.
I don't place any importance on rarity when it comes to photo gear but I do want the best quality I can afford and that I can actually use with relative ease.
So for me, even if I felt like I could spend that much on a lens, it just doesn't interest me.
Interesting always to understand how others think about things like this....I hope you can bid on the auction and succeed!
Indeed, I would love to own a Enzo. But given the choice I'd probably go for the F40. If we are talking about Ferrari.
A modern Ferrari I would love to own would be an F8 Tributo.
But I am a bit of a Porsche and aircooled fanatic as well. Like a 959 or late eighties 911.
Modern Porsche would run along the lines of a 911 GT-3 RS or GT-2 RS.
But I still love my Ghia to death, which is the complete opposite of all these cars.:D
If you haven't guessed it by now I am a bit of a car enthusiast.:D
You have a Ghia? Don't suppose it is the VW Karmann Ghia? Count me jealous if it is. Local VW dealership has one in their showroom. Very nice, I really like that car!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Stephen
With the 1200mm you wouldn't have to be as close to your Ferrari when you are taking vanity shots of the car in your drive.
That picture would really tell the story, mainly "Look at me, I have money to spend frivolously"
Unlike the car, which might be used to pick up hot babes, I really do not see any functional use for this lens that would make sense to own it.
Yup, VW Karmann Ghia. Just bought it about a month ago. I knew the owner who had it for 10 years. I told him multiple times when he is ready to sell it I want it. Well he did and I didn't hesitate to snap it up!
I got it running and driving, ish. Still needs a complete tune up. Eventually I will probably restore it but for now it is gonna be a driver and I will just enjoy the thing.
Both are luxurious items that you don't have to have. One could argue you can make a much faster car for a third of the cost. But it's not a Ferrari.
At least with the lens you can have the very best 1200mm lens made by anyone. Maybe some do not think it is worth it. But for some (Like me) are willing to pay for it. Good value or not it still is the best. Sure you lose IS, but IS is not a deal breaker on a lens like this. You are buying it for the best IQ at 1200mm and the widest aperture at 1200mm. You are pretty much limited to tripod use, but honestly that is pretty much the only way I shoot at 1200mm and beyond anyway.
Different strokes for different folks.
An f40 is a slow lens but a fast car :)
That lens is really expensive. The 1200mm f/5.6 has a 214mm aperture. TEC makes telescopes with similar sized fluorite glass, with supposedly very high quality optics. A 1600mm f/8 (200mm aperture) is about $28K. A 2500mm f/10 (250mm aperture) is about 56k, which seems a bargain when compared to the canon. No autofocus or electronics, but you're paying for the glass, right? Sure the canon is faster, but is that really what you're paying for?
Maybe it's just that there aren't that many, and it's a supply/demand thing.
You are paying because it is an actual usable lens, not a telescope.
Telescopes have a larger market and it balances out the development and production costs.
This lens took over a year to grow the fluorite. It was made by hand. And there are extremely few produced. So hence cost will be exceptionally high.
It be like saying why is the Ziess Octus costs as much as it does compared to other very good offerings.
And telescopes are typically not designed for photographic use. So many times their Bokeh is not as nice and the way it renders an image might not be as good.
But in places like the Olympics, high profile news agencies ect. The cost of this lens is on the level of other extremely high end gear. And for some people, who are well heeled, it is a dream lens.
https://petapixel.com/2021/10/11/can...r-a-lens/:eek:
Ok, it's no secret I love this lens. But wow! That's unbelievably expensive for what it cost before!!!!!
As much as I want this lens, there is just no way I could pull myself to purchase it.
Maybe at these prices Canon might find it within their hearts to make one again for RF mount and make something that is not only for billionaires.
I would settle for somewhat lesser IQ if it could be made afforadbly. Well as affordable as it could ever be anyway. It's never gonna be cheap. But I could live with a 25k price tag. Maybe 50k if I really wanted it.
I've been lifting weights...you buy it, I'll try to hand hold it :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer
If I ever become rich I'll be giving you a ring.;)
But I'd have to have quite the disposable income for a half million dollar lens.:)