How many would like to see a production model EF1200mm f/5.6 IS USM L with reworked optics, and of coursea more resonable price tag. Could be a bit lighter to.
Ihave a Minolta 600mm f/6.3and usealmost exclusively with a 2X extender.I would love to see a new 1200mm L.
Would have to be DO glass to be much lighter, but would still cost as much as a BMW M3 and would be tripod only even with IS. Intriging thought though. How bout it Canon!
JeffersonPoster
To be honest, i dont think its necessary. Even with a new model of the lens, how much cheaper could they make it? Not Much. So i dont think there is a high demand for it. MOst people use the 800 5.6 more often due to IS and eve nthen its a beast and too much length. I see it as obnoxious and too big to be a lens. Its more of a telescope to me. I think canon should work on making more lenses such as maybe a 120-300 2.8 like sigmas. or maybe a new lens like a 70-300 2.8. That would be cool becasue it might be expensive but it is reasonable and do-able for sure.
--Matt
I thought too that 1200mm was not necessary, at least for themost of us. Until I tried my hand at small bird photography! You can almost never have to much focal length!
As for cost, they could make it a lot cheaper. The only reason they charged so much for the 1200mm is because it was made on demand, Sigma makes a 200mm-500mm zoom which is far more complicated to design and make and they can sell it for $29,000. I think iftheyintroduced a production model they could sell it for something around what the Sigma costs.
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
It is made on demand because the flourite crystals take so long to grow. A whole year right?
Photographers should get that "grow your own crystals" kit they had when I was a kid, wait a year, then ship them to canon to refine. Should be a whole lot cheaper, right?
As long as we're dreaming, I'd like an 800mm f/11 IS MF (manual focus) for $2,000.
And I'd like a 10-500mm 1.8....how about it!? [:P]
I'm not interested unless it has IS and costs under $2000.
As I'm sure you're aware, Daniel, one can buy refracting telescopes with specs not too different from that (sans IS, of course) for far less than $2000. (I just bought a 750mm f/9.4 for $399)
Of course forget hand holding. And they tend not to have enough travel to be useful for stuff that isn't far away.
I agree with you. It would be nice to have a long slow IS lens made to work with my camera.
It would of course have to have IS, weigh less than 500gand cost less than $1,000 before I'd be interested[]
Oh, and throw in weather sealing as well.........
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote