They don't come up for sale very often....

[Josh-H]

Put this one squarely in the 'interest only' bracket - but like high end sports cars enthusiasts, photographers like to read about gear we cant afford.
Canon 1200mm - $120,000 USED

And for an enjoyable read - a new review has appeared 1200mm Les Review @ The Digital Picture

Edit - Note to prospective purchasers - it seems whoever write B&H's website has a sense of humour - note the description " Pack mule not included."  

[feppe]

Put this one squarely in the 'interest only' bracket - but like high end sports cars enthusiasts, photographers like to read about gear we cant afford.
Canon 1200mm - $120,000 USED

And for an enjoyable read - a new review has appeared 1200mm Les Review @ The Digital Picture

Edit - Note to prospective purchasers - it seems whoever write B&H's website has a sense of humour - note the description " Pack mule not included."  

I used to use one, and it's a an astounding lens for what it can do. You will need a second camera or spotting scope to be able to use it to it's full potential, though, as it is next to impossible to direct properly without having a wider FOV.

And an extremely sturdy tripod, good head with a handle for panning and tilting, and MLU is a must.

[harlemshooter]

that thing, or what have you, is disgusting.

I used to use one, and it's a an astounding lens for what it can do. You will need a second camera or spotting scope to be able to use it to it's full potential, though, as it is next to impossible to direct properly without having a wider FOV.

And an extremely sturdy tripod, good head with a handle for panning and tilting, and MLU is a must.

[shootergirl]

Edit - Note to prospective purchasers - it seems whoever write B&H's website has a sense of humour - note the description " Pack mule not included."  

They've had that on the site before and I actually e-mailed them saying that I got a kick out of the description. They forwarded it to the guy who wrote it and he thanked me. And attached a image he'd taken with that monster of a lens. I'm sorry to say, though, that they didn't just give me the lens for complimenting the description.  

Donna

[Steve Ralser]

There was an article sometime ago in the sydney morning herald (www.smh.com.au) about their use of this monster lens (I think they used it to photograph the governor general's residence from across the lake in Canberra).

Shouldn't Michael buy this lens and report to us on how it works.  Then, because it doesn't have IS, it can be his next prize in his raffle (maybe I'll buy something again)  



Steve

[feppe]

that thing, or what have you, is disgusting.

Uhh what?

[Plekto]

At this point, you'd be better off with an adapter and a 6-8 inch telescope.

[DaveCurtis]

I've shot terrestrial for fun with my 12inch f11 LX200 Meade telescope at prime focus. This equates to about  3000mm f11.

Rather disappointing if you shoot at distant objects due to atmospheric haze.

[kaelaria]

They need a new description...and I think it went up $20k from the last time it was up about a year or two ago!

[Plekto]

I've shot terrestrial for fun with my 12inch f11 LX200 Meade telescope at prime focus. This equates to about  3000mm f11.

Rather disappointing if you shoot at distant objects due to atmospheric haze.

Yet what did the adapters and the telescope cost?  $3-4K or so?    

There's a point where stupid is as stupid does, you know...  If you need such a big lens, there are easier ways to make it work.

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~...roduct_id=09972
Here's a roughly 1000mm equivalent f/5.3 for cheap.  Very good optics for the price.  Has a 2 inch focuser as well, so it'll fit a simple mount/adapter for a DSLR.  

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~...roduct_id=05270
Yep, literally that simple.  Not sure exactly how much the extension tubes add to the focal length, though, hence the "roughly" comment on my part.

It amazes me that people spend money on these old monster fixed focal length lenses when there are far superior options out there for a tiny fraction of the money.  As camera makers stopped developing these super-long lenses, telescopes kept getting better.   Most of the same companies, in fact, moved where the remaining money was - in astronomy.

Many decent telescopes are made to be just as precise if not moreso than any fixed zoom on a camera.  Few people know that this sort of thing is an option, though.  And, as a bonus, the manufacturers will almost always list the exact optical clarity right up front in easy to compare numbers.

The only advantage a Canon or similar zoom has, of course, is that it's a camera lens(refracting design) and so you can track objects easier.  Most of the telescopes sold are reflectors of various types and the mount is usually on the side.  But most telescopes have a decent enough spotting scope on them to get you in the general area quickly.  The live view of the camera's LCD gives you instant feedback - really nice compared to doing this in the old days with film.

Not light, though.. none of these are, really.(22lbs for that one without the mounts or adapter - close to 30lbs ready to mount on a tripod.

(yes that enormous Meade is a *BIT* overkill - lol)