Holy Crap!

[misterx]

Look at the size of that monster!




Surely it's price is a reasonable "first born child" or so.

[EDIT]
"It has been announced by Canon, that this lens will be released in May 2008, at a MSRP of $11,999.00 US funds."
[/EDIT]

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

We're gonna need a bigger boat tripod!

[misterx.livejournal.com]

Forget a tripod, I'm going to need a pack mule.

[starsinmybelly.livejournal.com]

and they say size doesn't matter.

[misterx.livejournal.com]

Whoever said that never contemplated this:

Canon 5200mm mirror lens.
6.3 feet long, roughly 2'x2' height/width, 220 lbs.
That tiny appendage on the right, under the spotting scope, is the camera. Great backpacking lens, for taking pictures of wildlife on the next mountain range over.

[starsinmybelly.livejournal.com]

my slr just wet its pants.

[misterx.livejournal.com]

For a more reasonable option, you can order this Canon 1200mm from B&H.



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800557508-USE/Canon__Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html

It's $99,000 used.

[zeppo-marx.livejournal.com]

Sure $12K sounds like a lot of money. But it comes with a discount coupon for Sherpa's R Us!

[midendian.livejournal.com]

I go 800mm fairly often with the 100-400 f/5.6 L IS + 2x TC, a combination that costs a far more reasonable two grand! Only problem is that it's f/11 and autofocus doesn't work. So I guess for an extra ten thousand dollars you get two stops brighter...

In my experience, air quality is never good enough to shoot at 800mm reliably anyway... But then, I only attempt it at airports.

[misterx.livejournal.com]

How much sharpness do you lose with the 2x? I am contemplating getting one to use with my 70/200

[misterx.livejournal.com]

crud, and here I just bought a year membership.

[midendian.livejournal.com]

Sharpness loss is significant, but not as bad as I'd imagined. The Canon 2x TC is really quite good; I have a Tamron 1.4x that is less clear than the Canon 2x (and has bad fringing and other color problems). Like I said, I only use it at airports, where the air is already clouded by heat turbulence, ocean mist, and jetwash.

Paired with the 100-400 f/5.6 L IS at 800mm:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/midendian/487740652/sizes/o/ (taken from about a half-mile away)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/midendian/487851079/sizes/o/ (taken from about one mile away)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/midendian/2231543005/sizes/o/ (taken from about 2.5 miles away, cropped -- this is probably the least fuzzy)


With the 70-200 f/2.8L, things would probably be better. Half the magnification of air quality compared to above, for one, and you should be able to get autofocus (f/2.8 -2 = f/5.6). Lack of autofocus is a major source of fuzziness in the above photos. (Things are better now that I have a 40D with the LiveView feature, but I still can't be as precise as autofocus.)

Probably worth carrying in your kit, for that few times a year when you could really use it!