| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2005 08:55:22 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:01:21 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
 |
I'd like to see this bad boy hand held. That thing is a monster. I praying I get one soon some how.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:05:08 AM · #3 |
How many mm lens is that?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:05:49 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:07:38 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:08:47 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:09:06 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
XD |
Now those are some big lenses. |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:09:09 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by hdogg4u:
Originally posted by Fetor:
|
I'd like to see this bad boy hand held. That thing is a monster. I praying I get one soon some how. |
Haha! Good luck. First off they're out of production and they were only made to order when they were in production. Secondly they used to cost $60k new.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:11:37 AM · #9 |
Also check out the Sigma 800mm 5.6 and the 300-800mm ex :-)
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:21:06 AM · #10 |
| I was not aware that they were out of production but what I do know is that less than 30 of those were ever produced! Sports Illustrated owns 4. |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:27:57 AM · #11 |
thats it? dang
its so much easier to slap a 2x extender on a 600 ya know
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:39:05 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
thats it? dang
its so much easier to slap a 2x extender on a 600 ya know |
Price wise for sure! result wise, not even close!! |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:48:10 AM · #13 |
lol if the results were that bad i would just use it for a telescope
Message edited by author 2005-06-26 13:48:21.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:51:44 AM · #14 |
for $6000 you can get this lens at 1600mm and F11 with a 2x. I've seen samples of the lens with no extender and it's droolworthy for sure.
//www.fotoconnection.com/viewitem.php?IndexID=3948&RefTag=froogle
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 04:47:08 PM · #15 |
| kyebosh, is the price $6,000 or $60,000? That lens is freakin nuts! |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 04:56:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by BK1017:
kyebosh, is the price $6,000 or $60,000? That lens is freakin nuts! |
the 800mm sigma is 6k the 1200 canon is 60k... I don't know what the going price is anymore, i'm not in the market to look for one ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 04:58:29 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
I was not aware that they were out of production but what I do know is that less than 30 of those were ever produced! Sports Illustrated owns 4. |
I think it's another victim of the "no lead or arsenic in the glass" purge that Canon went on. That's the reason the 200 f1.8 went out of production.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 05:09:25 PM · #18 |
A big lens needs a big image:
Link |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 06:27:49 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 06:32:00 PM · #20 |
Not the biggest but I wouldn't mind owning it !! |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 06:32:46 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
Hubble
I Win!
:) |
ahem... //www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/MIRI.asp
//astro.nineplanets.org/bigeyes.html
notice where hubble is on the list lol!
Message edited by author 2005-06-26 22:35:28.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 06:33:11 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Fetor:
|
There's big, huge & OMG !!!
|
|
|
|
06/26/2005 06:53:52 PM · #23 |
| I got a hernia just thinking about lugging that 1200 mm lens around. |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 09:59:39 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
06/26/2005 10:08:15 PM · #25 |
|
