Nikon Badass
Apr 18, 2018 10:35:25 #
Let's see now...we are supposed to hand hold that one, or do ee have to carry along a heavy old Bogen? 😁🤣😃
Apr 18, 2018 10:40:46 #
I always say - "go big or go home" so I went down to my local camera shop to get one and, can you believe it? They didn't have one in stock!!!
Apr 18, 2018 10:50:20 #
lamontcranston wrote:
If I could get that 1200-1700 in f/1.4 I'd pick one up.😎
If it was a F1.4 you wouldn't be able to pick it up
Apr 18, 2018 11:04:38 #
Apr 18, 2018 11:19:40 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
Rab-Eye wrote:
That’s why I never bought one. I won’t pay more than $59,000 for a lens. 🤔
Funny, that's my policy too!
Apr 18, 2018 11:28:05 #
Don't give him a hard time. He's just the spotter for a sniper who uses a converted AAA piece. All they had to do to make it work was find a way to make light follow the curve of Earth's surface. (Wait a minute . . . maybe the flat Earth people have a point.)
Apr 18, 2018 11:29:34 #
How can he use the view findef to focus that 'shoulder-mounted howitzer'?
Apr 18, 2018 11:52:58 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
That’s why I never bought one. I won’t pay more than $59,000 for a lens. 🤔
Apr 18, 2018 13:00:02 #
My god man! I have a hard enough time lugging my 2 bodies with lenses around. Looking at this guy, with what, 3 bodies, huge lenses and packs makes my bones hurt.
Skiextreme2 wrote:
This is, in fact, the proper way to carry the Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8.0 super telephoto lens. Weighing in at 36 pounds and measuring nearly 3 feet in length, the manual focus lens was introduced in 1993 and had a hefty price tag of $60,000.
Apr 18, 2018 13:10:58 #
I didn't think they made such a beast...moonshots must be fantastic!
Apr 18, 2018 13:12:16 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Would that be a clean and jerk or a press?
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣👍
You said what I was thinking.
Apr 18, 2018 13:16:42 #
FL Streetrodder wrote:
Just think, the Canon SX-60 has a longer range, weighs at least 35lbs less and only retails for about $400!
Yeah but think how you will impress women with this thing (vs the SX-60)! This thing screams "babe magnet". Isn't that worth $60k?
Apr 18, 2018 13:17:12 #
I actually have a 1300 mm f/16 non-mirror lens for my m4/3 camera - 2600 mm equivalent - and managed to shoot a useable photo handheld with image stabilization once.
Apr 18, 2018 13:28:50 #
jfdnp
Loc: Coastal Connecticut
Skiextreme2 wrote:
This is, in fact, the proper way to carry the Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8.0 super telephoto lens. Weighing in at 36 pounds and measuring nearly 3 feet in length, the manual focus lens was introduced in 1993 and had a hefty price tag of $60,000.
Fruit basket for a lens shade????
Apr 18, 2018 13:47:55 #
lamontcranston wrote:
I would sure want to mount those lenses on mirrorless bodies to save weight.
A DSLR body would just be too heavy.😎👍😂😋
A DSLR body would just be too heavy.😎👍😂😋
LOL!!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.