Hypothetically speaking : Is it Technically Possible to create a fast super tele?

[neuroanatomist]

Doesn't Sigma make a 200-500 f/2.8 ... I think it weighs about 36lbs and costs $26,000.00. I heard Fox Sports used one to film and broadcast part of the World Series.

"Fast" is relative, of course. But Canon makes lenses with an image circle sized for a 2/3" sensor that achieve 930mm f/4.7 (that's real focal length, not 'crop factor adjusted' which would be 3655mm f/18). These are field lenses for broadcast HDTV - for example, the DIGISUPER 100 xs is a 9.3-930mm f/1.7-4.7 lens, with a built-in 2x TC for 1860mm f/9.4, and it's an image-stabilized lens. It's a 10x10" lens (that's why they're called 'box lenses') that's 2 feet long and weighs over 50 lbs, and it can be yours for a mere $175,000.

Speaking of big lenses and baseball games, I ran across a neat video of these lenses (a DIGISUPER 75 xs) in use by cameraman Tom Guilmette, who shoots Red Sox games at Fenway Park (which I can see from my office, incidentally).



If you watch through to the end of the video, there's a great shot of a plane flying in front of the full moon taken at 1400mm (700mm w/ 2x extender).

While we certainly think photo gear is 'expensive', cinema/broadcast TV gear puts it to shame - his tripod head alone costs more than a 600 II.

[peety3]

"Fast" is relative, of course. But Canon makes lenses with an image circle sized for a 2/3" sensor that achieve 930mm f/4.7 (that's real focal length, not 'crop factor adjusted' which would be 3655mm f/18). These are field lenses for broadcast HDTV - for example, the DIGISUPER 100 xs is a 9.3-930mm f/1.7-4.7 lens, with a built-in 2x TC for 1860mm f/9.4, and it's an image-stabilized lens.

Not only is it image-stabilized, there are internal weights that move around "opposite" to the zoom/focus actions, so that the balance of the overall rig doesn't change during zoom and/or focus. Let's hope Canon doesn't do that to our 100-400s or 28-300s.