That's not a lens ...... , THIS is a lens

[Cage]

Came across this article on the legendary Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L USM lens.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...2446&KBID=3285

I didn't notice what the asking price was, but apparently it was originally released in the FD mount for $US79,000.00.

[ameerat42]

Interesting, with a few descriptions that made me winCe... - as cited:

1. "...This image demonstrates the incredible telephoto compression of this lens..."
and
2. "...hoping to show the incomparable compression capabilities of a 1200mm lens..."
then
3. "...We were able to get images of the boat from a great distance that gave the perspective of
shooting from the water on a chase boat in close proximity to the trimaran..."

- and one of the most wincEABle:
4. "...I can only imagine how using an APS-C format camera would extend this reach even farther..."

A jest, surely, as long as he's not saying it makes a good portrait lens:
5. "...Let me be the first to say that a 1200mm lens is really good for portraiture. The Canon’s incredibly shallow depth of field
(1.1" at f/5.6 and the minimum focus distance) ensured that the backgrounds were reduced to ultra-smooth renditions of unrecognizable creaminess..."

I was unaware that the populace had such an appetite for populism. Pity the budding photographers.

I wonder if there is a like lens, or if "that's it"?

Here is another, somewhat more technical, review: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...ns-Review.aspx

[Cage]

Thanks for the BC link Am.

Bryan usually tells it how it is.

[Tannin]

Q: Why is it legendary?
A: Because they don't make it any more.
Q: Why don't they make it anymore?
A: Because it's an ancient design originally made for film, with a slow aperture and no IS. It is comprehensively out-performed in every way by modern, vastly cheaper, much smaller, much lighter, much more practical lenses such as the 600/4 and the 800/5.6. Modern gear has gone beyond what it could do: there are about a dozen different lenses around from Canon and Nikon, any one of which you'd rather own and use if you need massive reach, and none of them costing more than $20k.
Q: Is that all you have to do to be legendary? Stop making something?
A: No, the thing you stop making has to be notable in some way, and this monster of a lens certainly was notable. An extraordinary unit indeed.
Q: So it's pretty useless these days and basically boring?
A: No. Sure, it's not much use for photography anymore but anyone with a love of fine machinery has an interest in it, just as with (for example) Heavy Harry, or the Great Eastern, or the Spruce Goose.

[Cage]

Q: Why is it legendary?
A: Because they don't make it any more.
Q: Why don't they make it anymore?
A: Because it's an ancient design originally made for film, with a slow aperture and no IS. It is comprehensively out-performed in every way by modern, vastly cheaper, much smaller, much lighter, much more practical lenses such as the 600/4 and the 800/5.6. Modern gear has gone beyond what it could do: there are about a dozen different lenses around from Canon and Nikon, any one of which you'd rather own and use if you need massive reach, and none of them costing more than $20k.
Q: Is that all you have to do to be legendary? Stop making something?
A: No, the thing you stop making has to be notable in some way, and this monster of a lens certainly was notable. An extraordinary unit indeed.
Q: So it's pretty useless these days and basically boring?
A: No. Sure, it's not much use for photography anymore but anyone with a love of fine machinery has an interest in it, just as with (for example) Heavy Harry, or the Great Eastern, or the Spruce Goose.

Tony, going by your somewhat cynical reply, I gather that your day has been about as exciting as mine has been.

If you've been indulging in some Navel Gazing, as opposed to Star Gazing, I don't need to remind you that it has a very short time span for optimum interest, once you've confirmed for the umpteenth time that you have either an 'inny' or and 'outy'.

Now c'mon, 'fess up, don't tell me you wouldn't like to have one of these highly impractical toys in your kit to have a play with when the whim took you.

[Tannin]

Cynical? Not at all. It was a truly wonderous thing in its day, but that day was long, long ago.

Would I like to have one? Frankly, no. Not even as a gift. (Unless, of course, I was allowed to accept the gift and then sell it, but in that case it would be easier all round to just give me the cash in the first place.)

Think about it. What would I use it for? Well, nothing.

What can it do that a 600/4 can't do better? Pretty much nothing. There might be some marginal extra reach but in practice I doubt it. Remember, the 1200/5.6 isn't just handicapped by elderly optics, it also needs IS more than any other lens and it doesn't have it. As a matter pf practical reality, you are going to get better pictures using anything modern and more sensible. Obviously a 600/4 II, but also a 600/4 I, an 800/5.6, either of the 400/2.8s and either of the 500/4s.

[achee]

Please note that even if the Canon 1D X had featured a fully articulating LCD screen, this camera/lens combination is completely unsuitable for selfies.

[olympuse620]

'telescope' is probably a better description

[tandeejay]

And if your a nikon user, there was this one: https://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/0...or-1200-1700mm