Supertelephoto Lens ("Big White") definition for the purpose of this survey: any white lens which is provisioned with a rear drop-in filter.

It seems to me that a fair number of FM regulars own supertelephoto lenses. The highest concentration of those one finds on the N&W and Sports Boards, which is to be expected.

On occasion I visit other forums checking for any topic of interest. For example, it would seem that just about everyone on the Naturescapes Net owns at least one supertelephoto, either Canon or Nikon or both. Can't do wildlife photography unless you have them.
Similarly, the Pixelshooter's "Birds" forum members seem to be well endowed with "Big Whites", or "Big Blacks", as the case may be.
POTN forum seems more economy orientated.....most folks there shoot wildlife with the standard trio 100-400, 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4 and they seem quite happy with that, obtaining good results too.

So let us see where we stand on the Canon gear board. My advance guess is that about 20% of the regular members here own at least one supertelephoto lens.
Incidentally, if you own Nikon supertelephoto lenses in addition to Canon ones, please count them as well in the total number of lenses in your possession.
If you own Nikon lenses only, then please go to the Nikon board and start your own poll there.

Just a couple...

The 300/2.8 is my favorite of the two.

Wow, so far one of us owns 7 or more, and one of us owns zero. Average of 3-4 I guess, but I also don't guess that trend will hold!

Edit: more votes coming in, and as expected it's moving toward the low end. I hope to some day alter my 0 to a 1.

Photon wrote:
Wow, so far one of us owns 7 or more, and one of us owns zero. Average of 3-4 I guess, but I also don't guess that trend will hold!

That person with "7" lenses must be either R.Cicala or some darn collector (not me.)

PetKal wrote:

That person with "7" lenses must be either R.Cicala or some darn collector (not me.)

Well, it's not me. My fleet is not that extensive!

PetKal, it's amazing that you can use 7 big whites to shoot those brick walls, and leave the DIFs and other BIFs to fisheyes and other shorties!
Edit: Not yours, hmm. Oops, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Apologies.

so... the 400 5.6 does not count, right?

RichardLavigne wrote:
so... the 400 5.6 does not count, right?

No rear drop in filter, it doesn't count.
Although, Canon in some of their literature might refer to it as a "supertelephoto" lens because it is >300mm FL.

Photon wrote:
PetKal, it's amazing that you can use 7 big whites to shoot those brick walls, and leave the DIFs and other BIFs to fisheyes and other shorties!
Edit: Not yours, hmm. Oops, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion. Apologies.

Damn, the kind of abuse I must suffer even from my friends here.
Apology accepted.

I have a white 300 4L and matching white 1.4 extender but I guess it ain't super enough. Canon includes it in the supertele section of the EF Lens Work.

I have only 3, but 9 whites in all.

EBH

PetKal wrote:
Damn, the kind of abuse I must suffer even from my friends here.
Apology accepted.

If not you, then who is the 'man of 7 or more'?

Gochugogi wrote:
I have a white 300 4L and matching white 1.4 extender but I guess it ain't super enough. Canon includes it in the supertele section of the EF Lens Work.

True enough, but they are also not consistent in their usage of the term "supertelephoto". For example, on their museum site, "supertelephoto" is 400mm and over.

I think one can most readily identify them by their "super" price (new): no play under $4k.

PetKal wrote:
RichardLavigne wrote:
so... the 400 5.6 does not count, right?

No rear drop in filter, it doesn't count.
Although, Canon in some of their literature might refer to it as a "supertelephoto" lens because it is >300mm FL.

Yea... I'd think that focal length is the ONLY qualifier for super telephoto... but you made the rules, so be it.

Tom_W wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Damn, the kind of abuse I must suffer even from my friends here.
Apology accepted.

If not you, then who is the 'man of 7 or more'?

Tommy, could be RCicala, or Burningheart (Robert) or some joker....I don't know ?
Also, DavidP, Joshua, Netexpress, etc.....all kinds of folks here who have been hoarding big lenses.

Just the sucky 400 DO. Shame on me.

I have a few whites, but none with a drop in filter... For shame.

During A Period Of Transtion, I Owned 8 .....
But Have Trimmed It Back To 5 Now.....

I own two, but one is only a 70-200 2.8.

jrn813 wrote:
During A Period Of Transtion, I Owned 8 .....
But Have Trimmed It Back To 5 Now.....

So how do you enjoy doing photography now with your "minimalistic" kit ?

stanj wrote:
Just the sucky 400 DO. Shame on me.

Stan, I think you need to muscle up.....grab that bull by the horns and get yourself a 600 f/4.......when I was your age I could handhold that lens for minutes on end.

PetKal wrote:
...when I was your age I could handhold that lens for minutes on end.



I could handhold a 500/4 P Nikkor back in the day if that means anything to you.

EBH

7? How many big whites even have a drop in filter? 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 400 DO, 500 4, 600 4, 800 5.6 and 1200 5.6?

EB-1 wrote:
PetKal wrote:
...when I was your age I could handhold that lens for minutes on end.



I could handhold a 500/4 P Nikkor back in the day if that means anything to you.

EBH

Well, not really, but I assume the beast weighed something like 6 kg.

PetKal wrote:
EB-1 wrote:
PetKal wrote:
...when I was your age I could handhold that lens for minutes on end.



I could handhold a 500/4 P Nikkor back in the day if that means anything to you.

EBH

Well, not really, but I assume the beast weighed something like 6 kg.

No, it was really rather light, but had no AF.

EBH