ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri

Nikon shooters will wait until the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 P IF-ED is up for sale.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

So.....Whats the point in that response? I must say, I always appreciate your SAGE answers, but..... What is your point about "shooting NEEKON"? ever tried OTHERS?? RJM

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Because "I shoot Nikon", i won't agonize about my need for this expensive Canon lens.

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

Is this the one I remember seeing at 564 lbs. The photo of it that I remember had a Hasselblad on the back of it that was barely noticeable.

16mmguy

Years ago I read a very interesting article in American Cinematographer magazine about a lens Stanley Kubrick needed for his movie "Barry Lyndon". It was a Zeiss if I remember correctly. He paid an astronomically high amount for it because it was an f/0.7. He needed it for interior scenes that were shot in a castle at 24 frames, lit only by candlelight. The lens had to have a fairly wide depth of field wide open. He hired specialist to have it modified and fitted to a Mitchell BNC studio camera. The guy said it was imossible, but Kubrick wouldn't take no for an answer, so the engineer took a closer look at the problem and you can see the results in the DVD. Amazing.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Accordong to the B&H video it weighs 36 pounds

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

This particular piece has traded hands twice since it's original sale. Someone @ B&H told me the history, the owner is never in a hurry to sell and always gets their asking price. There is/was such a demand for it that Canon offered it new for many years. Rumors abound as to the customers who actually bought one and what their usage may have been. Possibly the NSA has one or two that they use for "domestic surveillance". The sensitivity of 1200 mms must be incredible. The hood alone rivals the sail on racing yachts. Who could possibly hand-hold a 35 lb. lens?

David Keith

LOL... Classic ....

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Me too

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

No, been shooting Nikons for 40 years.

David Keith

I believe he stating that he shoot's the best of the best of Japanese camera maker's for "him" ... I equate it to similar japanese makers of great products like ... "Toyota" they sell more car's but Honda's are better designed and last longer... It's very fine point's of quality and design but I would be lost trying to figure out how most Canon product's work ... Nikon is a very intuitive designed camera, flash and len's.... Canon did choose the wiser lens mount for future product's but Nikon kept the faith with it's lineage of classic len's ... Canon makes a great products, for me Nikon is just superior ... it's just a personal opinion ... nothing more, nothing less and yes I have used some canon product's professionally ...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I wonder if it can be used with a 2X TC

16mmguy

I was a film guy for 40 years. I did my first wedding with a Crown Graphic and press 25 bulbs, which worked great. I didn't really mind the 5 or 6 operations you have to go through between shots. When I bought my first 35mm camera, it was a Nikkormat, which served me fine. Later I bought an OM-1 (the first downsized 35mm), which also served me fine. When I was working for the state, I didn't have much choice. They had a cabinetful of Pentax lenses, so I used a two Pentax LXs, which also served me fine. I later bought a Pentax 6x7 for vacations and because it gave me a 6x7 negative, plus the camera was designed exactly like a 35mm and was easy to hold... weighty but well balanced. Outside of a laughably slow x-sync speed of 1/30, that camera worked very well. Later, for weddings, I used two Hasselblads, and the served me very fine. They were very dependable with great glass. When I relocated after retiring from the state, I got "drafted" into working for a newspaper and a magazine. For no particular reason except for a friend of mine who did weddings with digital Nikons, I bought Nikons, and they have served me very fine. Love the solid feel, nice location of the buttons you use the most, and they're slightly boxier than the Canons, which is just a matter of cosmetics. But I am sure had I started using Canon instead of Nikon, they would have done a fine job for me. I guess I'm saying that both Nikon and Canon are great products with great lenses. Sometimes it seems like, after talking to Canon and Nikon users, they were almost built in the same factory. I don't mean literally, but they're both great companies. I find it interesting that Canon has a great line of professional video lenses and cameras. I'm not talking about dual-function DSLRs, but the made-exclusively-for-video only cameras with power zooms, etc. You can split hairs about either brand and find a minor annoyance, but both are great companies. Maybe competition has helped innovation and keep quality up there.

valley3photo

I remember when this one came out. It was not for sale, for rent only. An old lens.

Taggs

Have you tried our members classified section? It might be cheaper there. 8-) 😈😈😈😈