Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: 1200mm f/5.6 L.

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,444
    A couple more examples (one at very high iso)




  2. #12
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    1,056
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 06-10-2021 at 07:41 PM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,444
    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

    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!

  4. #14
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    1,056
    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.

    If you haven't guessed it by now I am a bit of a car enthusiast.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 06-10-2021 at 11:16 PM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Fast Glass View Post
    But I still love my Ghia to death, which is the complete opposite of all these cars.
    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!

    Stephen

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,978
    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.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    1,056
    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.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    1,056
    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.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    1,275
    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.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    1,056
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •