Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
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
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
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.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
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.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.