| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/29/2007 08:58:43 PM · #1 |
| Canon 1200 I would buy it but I prefer to keep a backup for everything, so would need 2 of them instead of the 1 available :-) |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:31:53 PM · #2 |
I'm holding out for when it drops to the upper 80s.
But seriously...what would you even do with a lens like this? I can't imagine it would be very useful. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:33:29 PM · #3 |
Sold, it'll be at my doorstep next week.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:34:45 PM · #4 |
| The price for that polerizer is outragous, people are suckers if they pay that much for just a filter. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:36:55 PM · #5 |
I'd prefer this little 560-1600mm f/22... :o)
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:39:04 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm holding out for when it drops to the upper 80s.
But seriously...what would you even do with a lens like this? I can't imagine it would be very useful. |
Paparazzi from a helicopter maybe (I believe that at least one is used this way).... Maybe astro usage. It would be easier to use a lesser lens and drive a mile closer :-)
That is just sad.... Imagine what that much stacking would do on this sucker :-)
Message edited by author 2007-12-29 21:40:42. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:40:25 PM · #7 |
| To bad I do not have a Canon, I would go for that lens in a heart beat. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:41:29 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But seriously...what would you even do with a lens like this?
I can't imagine it would be very useful. |
Just think. You could be sitting in downtown Camas, WA and wouldn't even have to pay
for a New York Times, as you could read the copy the guy is reading in the park in Flagstaff, AZ
That lens would pay for itself in say about 8,600 years! (based on a non-subscription rate)
;) |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:41:42 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
To bad I do not have a Canon, I would go for that lens in a heart beat. |
That lens is why I bought into the canon system, I feel bad for you Nikon folk. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:45:20 PM · #10 |
| If I buy the lens then I can not afford to buy the body or even a hot meal! |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:50:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
To bad I do not have a Canon, I would go for that lens in a heart beat. |
That lens is why I bought into the canon system, I feel bad for you Nikon folk. |
LOL
I think if I had $99K for the lens I could sport the extra 2 grand on a 5D Nikon or not.
:-P
Message edited by author 2007-12-29 21:50:41. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 09:50:43 PM · #12 |
Their price seems a little out of whack... I think the new price for that lens is/was in that range, and I think that they were actually sold for less than that, at least rumor has it, more like $75-80k
Message edited by author 2007-12-29 21:50:53. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 10:02:10 PM · #13 |
| Bah. It only has a 48mm filter size :p |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 10:32:54 PM · #14 |
too bad it has front focous.
But hey, nikon still beats canon. 1200-1700mm |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 10:44:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ben4345:
too bad it has front focous.
But hey, nikon still beats canon. 1200-1700mm |
Shit! I bought into the wrong system. I'm putting my gear up FS. |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 10:51:21 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by ben4345:
too bad it has front focous.
But hey, nikon still beats canon. 1200-1700mm |
Shit! I bought into the wrong system. I'm putting my gear up FS. |
Canon = epic fail
lol |
|
|
|
12/29/2007 11:43:02 PM · #17 |
Leica once had a lens, 800mm 6.3, if you bought it they gave you a Volkswagen.
From Wikipedia
Leica 800 mm f/6.3 Telyt-S ΓΆ€” 1972-1995 (sold, during a brief promotion, with what the ad said was a "free tripod" -- a VW Fox
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 11:54:45 PM · #18 |
I keep trying to talk my spousal unit into buying me a Super Tele before I go to Greenland. I keep telling her that 400mm is not long enough for photographing Polar Bears. She keeps refusing to let me part with the moeny for the 500 or 600mm. I keep telling her that she is going to get a phone call saying her husband was eaten buy a Polar Bear because his lens was too short.
So as a joke I called her into the room and told her this would keep me from being eaten by the Polar Bears and she smacked me upside the head. She is mean. I don't think she wants me to return from Greenland. Little does she realize, if I don't return she doesn't get to move to Hawaii. Oh wait, I have life insurance. Maybe that is the ploy all along. Evil woman, she is!
Message edited by author 2007-12-29 23:54:56.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2007 11:59:33 PM · #19 |
If it was in the f2.8 range I would consider it.
But, I prolly would need to buy a crane, or four strong girls to help me carry the damn thing.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 12:09:49 AM · #20 |
Well... I'd get it, but I really would prefer not to have to communicate with my models via walkie talkie.
BUT, it might come in handy for getting those candids of Bridzilla... I'll give it some thought.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 12:15:50 AM · #21 |
| Shipping to my house, 180 miles away or so, is only $542 via UPS! |
|
|
|
12/30/2007 01:16:04 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
I keep telling her that 400mm is not long enough for photographing Polar Bears. She keeps refusing to let me part with the moeny for the 500 or 600mm. |
Can I have your gear? I can sell it to buy more Nikon stuff.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2007 01:24:09 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by BHuseman:
Oh wait, I have life insurance. Maybe that is the ploy all along. Evil woman, she is! |
If your 400mm suddenly gets 200mm shorter... don't, I repeat don't, go to Greenland.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 05:14:28 PM EST.
