If you can't afford that 1200 mm lens.....

[Joe the Photog]

Here's an 800 mm for the price of a small car.

It's the size....

[Walter S]

Thanks for the heads up, didnt think it was in stock yet. Just ordered

After looking at the two reviews and who made them they are both Hobbyist/Enthusiast and just getting started. It must be nice to have that kind of $$$. Or maybe the live in a tent just to afford it?

[ottergoose]

Ween could still take telemashes of trains in North Dakota from Colorado with one of those puppies... lordy.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by ottergoose

Ween could still take telemashes of trains in North Dakota from Colorado with one of those puppies... lordy.

I'd have to climb to Pike's Peak first, but yeah!

[Warren]

I just got the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and I haven't got to use it yet. It seems to be really heavy at 3.5 lbs, this one says it it 10 lbs wow!

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by Ween

I'd have to climb to Pike's Peak first, but yeah!

Mt. Evans is higher and is paved all the way to the top. It is actually the highest paved road in the world make sure you check it out when you go.

[KevinM]

There must come a point of diminishing returns where the quality of the atmosphere (haze, dust, humidity etc) essentially trumps the extra bucks spent on bigger and bigger glass.

[Walter S]

Canon released this lens just before the 2008 Summer Olympics. I guess Sports Illustrated bought a few as they have 3 or so 1200mm also. It would be a sweet sports lens.

[chris crook]

Originally Posted by KevinM

There must come a point of diminishing returns where the quality of the atmosphere (haze, dust, humidity etc) essentially trumps the extra bucks spent on bigger and bigger glass.

Used a lot by bird photographers. Small target, relatively close; don't have to worry as much about atmosphere compared to trying to use one to shoot trains.

[jnohallman]

You know, with the 1.4x extender, it's probably a better deal than the 1200mm. And then Ween wont have to climb any mountains!

Jon

Originally Posted by Walter S

Thanks for the heads up, didnt think it was in stock yet. Just ordered

Walter, did you say that your print sales have been extremely strong !!!

Last time I saw a price on the EF 1200mm, it was $79,000 - special order only. That makes the EF 800mm a bargain by comparison.

[trainboysd40]

Originally Posted by KevinM

There must come a point of diminishing returns where the quality of the atmosphere (haze, dust, humidity etc) essentially trumps the extra bucks spent on bigger and bigger glass.

Come to western Canada, and hope it doesn't snow =)

[lock4244]

I'd love to get a 400mm or 500mm. But when I think about it, I have a decent 300mm that I barely use... in fact, I've only one shot on RP where I used the 300 (BNSF at Maryhill, WA) * EDIT: two, the other is Sandpoint, ID. * Having a big telephoto is great in certain instances, but it's hard to justify the expense 99% of the time.

That said, I'd still love a 400 or 500mm... if I didn't have a mortgage

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by lock4244

That said, I'd still love a 400 or 500mm... if I didn't have a mortgage

Mike, do you live near Toronto or some other major city? Don't forget about the rental market if you have a shot in mind and can plan your trip. I've rented a 100-400 and a 400/2.8, really expensive stuff but inexpensive to rent, especially over a weekend. Apparently the big demand is mid-week rentals by pros so the weekends are cheap.

[Walter S]

I would like to get a 300 F2.8L IS. Will probably get one of those babys before I get a new camera. Most of my shots, maybe 85%, on RP have been taken with the Canon 24-105 IS. That lens has been great.

[lock4244]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Mike, do you live near Toronto or some other major city? Don't forget about the rental market if you have a shot in mind and can plan your trip. I've rented a 100-400 and a 400/2.8, really expensive stuff but inexpensive to rent, especially over a weekend. Apparently the big demand is mid-week rentals by pros so the weekends are cheap.

Yes, the City below Vaughan... Toronto

I never thought of renting, to be honest. There aren't many shots around here I can think of that'd require a bigger lens than my 300mm (and there aren't many I can think of for my 300mm). Now if all goes to plan and I make it out to Powder River in the summer of 2009, well, I can really see the need. I usually don't travel with the 300mm due to it's weight and tripod requirement, but this past summer I did and boy am I glad I did.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by lock4244

Yes, the City below Vaughan... Toronto

Ah. I'd never heard of Vaughan. Been to Toronto (Scarborough) many times, as a boy. Got one box of really bad slides from those days ('70s). I remember sending some other slides in using a mailer to Kodak Canada but never got them back, perhaps because I was a US resident. Dumb kid.

[lock4244]

Janusz, Vaughan is a suburb of Toronto, immediately north of Toronto. It's where CN's massive MacMillan yard is located... and most of the business and industry chased out of Toronto by the goons that run Toronto (into the ground). Vaughan used to advertise themselves to businesses as "the City above Toronto, the City of Vaughan". My thing is tounge and cheek.

I've actually lived in Scarborough (now officially part of Toronto) all my life. So where did you visit in the 70's? Agincourt (CP)? Scarborough Jct. (CN)? Beare (CN & CP, near the zoo)? Curious.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by lock4244

I've actually lived in Scarborough (now officially part of Toronto) all my life. So where did you visit in the 70's? Agincourt (CP)? Scarborough Jct. (CN)? Beare (CN & CP, near the zoo)? Curious.

No clue. I was visiting family, several times a year, but only went trackside once or maybe twice during all that time.

[trainboysd40]

I'm just going to dig up some ultra telephoto shots here. At that distance, it's hard to pull out something other than a wedgie!

PhotoID: 248849 Photograph © Matthew Hicks

PhotoID: 245957 Photograph © Matthew Hicks

PhotoID: 242487 Photograph © Matthew Hicks

PhotoID: 240081 Photograph © Matthew Hicks

And aside from a couple telewedgies, those are the only pics I have on here at 400mm. Damn good lens for birds though!