Anyone have $34000 lying around for a lens?

[Viper007Bond]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=350347707478

 

[sifu]

cheap as chips..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

 

[Dr_Q]

No, perhaps for a lens though.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

220 deg FOV ....

 

[bone]

cheap as chips..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

hmm, should i get a house, or a lense?

 

[eroy2]

screw the house, buy a Dodge Viper or Vette ZR-1 for that price.

 

[Top Geek]

LENS. THERE'S NO "E" AT THE END

 

[Ramseus]

That's not the 13, that's the 6. The 13 is significantly smaller, 5.6, and rectilinear. The 6 is that monster, 2.8, and fishy.

 

[Top Geek]

Oops, wasn't paying attention.

 

[Evel]

Out of curiosity, do lenses get any smaller (In terms of mm) than this 6mm?

 

[Ramseus]

4mm point and shoot lenses. But that doesn't really count. AFAIK there's nothing wider (and the widest rectilinear is sigma's 12-24/8-16)

 

[Evel]

4mm point and shoot lenses. But that doesn't really count. AFAIK there's nothing wider (and the widest rectilinear is sigma's 12-24/8-16)

Yeah, I meant DSLR lenses.

Anyways, $34,000 for a lens sounds ridiculous, let alone the $120,000 that Canon 1200mm costs. Mind you, I do love super telephoto lenses, so if I had the money, I bet I'd buy that Canon.

 

[BlaRo]

cheap as chips..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

For that price you could possibly, oh I don't know, move in closer? Though the money you'll make from those Taylor Swift nudie shots will probably pay it back in a matter of weeks.

 

[sifu]

mmm... nudie.

 

[Ramseus]

*cough*

Too bad a) it's MF, b) Nikon stopped being insane a long time ago.

 

[edkwon]

Talk about 'All-seeing eye'

 

[Top Geek]

cheap as chips..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

You gotta wonder... if the 800/5.6 is $11,000, why does a lens that is only 50% longer cost over 1000% more? I realize it's the same speed that it's quite the feat of engineering, but a thousand percent? Really??

 

[marcos_eirik]

You gotta wonder... if the 800/5.6 is $11,000, why does a lens that is only 50% longer cost over 1000% more? I realize it's the same speed that it's quite the feat of engineering, but a thousand percent? Really??

You need to reverse it; the 800/5,6 is a bargain...

 

[tooomahs]

Wow..that Canon lens is..so expensive..

 

[evoWALO]

You gotta wonder... if the 800/5.6 is $11,000, why does a lens that is only 50% longer cost over 1000% more? I realize it's the same speed that it's quite the feat of engineering, but a thousand percent? Really??

It is a great marketing tool. Not to mention about 1-2 dozen were made of which only less than a dozen is left in functioning order. One is up on sale and the others are hidden from the public's view.

I talked to a gentleman who had the 1200 on loan from Canon SA a few years back and he says the 800 is better. I tend to agree with him. :lol:

The problem with owning a lens like the 1200 is the atmospheric distortion you will encounter when you are too far from the subject. Compounded by a film-era MTF chart will show a lot of bad looking shots from the 1200.