The 1200mm is HELLA HARDCORE!!! When I was in Highschool and a Canon fanatic, I bought the Canon Lens Work book and it had a whole page on the Lens and it was awesome.
I was fortunate enough to get an opportunity to cover the Space Shuttle's return to flight a year ago, and a 1200mm f/5.6 was present at the first launch attempt. Not sure who had it, but it was HUGE.
What a long day that was, but seeing a lauch that close was worth it.
I shot the launch standing next to Carleton Bailey, a well-known photographer for Boeing. In addition to several remote sound-activated cameras that he had set up near the pad, he used a 800mm FD lens, with a Canon FD-EOS converter, on a 10D. I believe this gave him an effective 1850mm f/8 (1.46x for the EOS-FD converter and 1.6x on the 10D).
wtlloyd wrote:
Ragebot - actually, the IS does as much or more to correct shutter and mirror vibration as it does gross motion. When I have the 2x on my 600, I am not waving the lens around, taking flight shots. It's mirror prefire, often with a remote release, and the wimberley is locked down and I am forcing down the lens with my left hand.
SNIP
Disclaimer: I have never owned or used a Canon lens with IS. The IS experience I have had is with a FZ20 P&S and it does add a couple of stops or so. Please dont take this next part wrong.
There have been many threads here and at dpreview about how to use IS mode 1 or mode 2 on both Canon IS lens and IS lens from other companies. I have never seen a concensus on how to deal with IS on a tripod. My book says turn it off when on a tripod, but it is a P&S. Some folks claim you should do this with the Canon IS lens, some dont.
As for putting your left hand on the lens I agree since that is what I do, but I have seen some folks calim you should lift the lens up from the bottom. I have tried that but it seems to me it would just counter gravity to some extent and be a wash.
What I was trying to point out is that photographer disipline is more important than the glass when imaging with super teles.
The actual cost of this lens was $80,000. Sports Illustrated owns two of them. It can no longer be manufactured because it used environmentally unfriendly leaded glass
I have the Sigma 300 - 800 also, and i'd not entertained the idea of using tc's, let alone stacked, as i thought image quality suffered with zoom's, but not with primes.
Are you using Canon or Sigma TC's on the bird shot above?
billbones wrote:
I was fortunate enough to get an opportunity to cover the Space Shuttle's return to flight a year ago, and a 1200mm f/5.6 was present at the first launch attempt. Not sure who had it, but it was HUGE.
What a long day that was, but seeing a lauch that close was worth it.
I shot the launch standing next to Carleton Bailey, a well-known photographer for Boeing. In addition to several remote sound-activated cameras that he had set up near the pad, he used a 800mm FD lens, with a Canon FD-EOS converter, on a 10D. I believe this gave him an effective 1850mm f/8 (1.46x for the EOS-FD converter and 1.6x on the 10D)....Show more →
And it is only one of many. If you are happy using it please continue to do so. But also please recognize that there are folks who think it should not be used on a tripod.
ragebot wrote:
Again I have no personal experience with IS on Canon lens, but there are lots of peeps who think it should be tunred off on tripods as this link shows
And it is only one of many. If you are happy using it please continue to do so. But also please recognize that there are folks who think it should not be used on a tripod.
Sure, but then there are people who believe that Brittany Spears is attractive. wtlloyd is right: the early generations could not deal with tripods, the newer ones can. You just need to read the manual for each lens.
The Canon 1200mm is affordable, portable and doesn't have much reach. The following is the lens to buy: Leica Apo-Telyt-R 1600mm f/5.6. IIRC it cost a round million bucks (the buyer paid for the design and construction) and weighs 60kg.
....and people complain about how big and heavy the 24-70 2.8L is....
It only costs a million dollars to design them? that seems really, really cheap to be honest...Yeah a million dollars isn't pocket change, but I'd think that a lot more than a million dollars is required to design a lens and have it produced...
So, if one of us won the lottery, you're telling me that that person could approach canon and tell them you want an 1800mm or 2000mm 5.6L lens? or maybe a 1000mm f4? (wonder how much AF costs add to that price...)
Leica does work like this, not Canon. Canon wouldn't even talk to you, most likely. Yes, they do work like this, if you pay for the whole process. They already have an 800mm f/5.6 Apo-Telyt-R, so the work didn't start at nothing. It is probably a modular design. Also, telephoto lenses are very simple, compared to wide-angle lenses. I guess a fancy corrected 12mm FF Leica would cost you more than this beast. Check out the tripod, by the way :)
Leica has done other work on this basis. For example, a sheik wanted a titanium Leica M6, so they designed it for him, including three (or was it five?) titanium-body lenses. Later they have marketed this again, so they clearly get to keep the design as part of the deal.
zy astro shots. 
