Someone mentioned the Oakley owner having one.. My boss used to work for Canon. He was a Tech Rep for the west coast and then a Sales Rep for a while. He was actually in Cal's cameras when the guy came in to ask about it. My boss gave him all the info and such for Canon, but in the end Canon Japan did the final deal. He was bummed that he didn't get to count that one for his monthly sales! Apparently that one isn't included since technicaly the sales guys don't handle it.
He was saying at the time they were brining two into the US each year and were built after payment which was about $77,000 at the time. When he would go to the Super Bowl and so forth with all the gear for the pros to use that was the one lens they didn't take with them. He never got to even see one.
I saw the Nikon fisheye at a conference in 87. You could see your feet and a bit of your legs. Was a conversation piece. Free drinks was the big draw but lens was pretty cool. Steve
Hi all.
I remember some years back seeing a photo of the lens and subject, i believe in Petersons Photographic. The 1200 F5.6, owned by Canon, Canada, on two tripods, or three? , photographing a Boeing 747 landing. I believe Fuji Veliva ! All rivets and skin ringles were clearly visable! Awsome aviation photo. Maybe, ill find one at the flea market tomorrow?
Cheers
Harry Palmer
I looked through the viewfinder of an EOS 1n Attached to a 1200mm at a Raiders game back in 1994-1995. I believe the photographer was Richard Mackson of Sport Illustrated.
Oh yeah the lens....it was an amazing experience seeing players compressed like that.
I was using stacked teleconverters with the 400 2.8L II today - 2x and 1.4x...and all together I'm not even at 1200mm
Would have really been useful to have 1200mm....1700mm...except for lugging it around (30 pounds I was carrying, vs what woulda been what...60..70..80 with a 1200L?)
limited use for such a monster but if i was awarded an olympic contract and paid very well, i might order one for my team of photographers..maybe i, being the chief photographer (!!), would get to use it to get those good closeups.. hiii
To be honest with a 600mm and a 1.4X on a 20/30D you will have 1344mm but without AF, on the 1D mkII you get 1092mm but with AF, could be worth just cropping for the money you save!
Beni wrote:
To be honest with a 600mm and a 1.4X on a 20/30D you will have 1344mm but without AF, on the 1D mkII you get 1092mm but with AF, could be worth just cropping for the money you save!
I think you will have AF with the 600/4 + 1.4x on the 20/30D, because the aperture will be f/5.6 with the 1.4x.
Sorry, I'm getting confused with the monster which is the title of this thread, I'd forgotten the 600mm is an f4 not 5.6, you are right of course, drives my point home a bit money wise especially as 8 megapixels is more than enough for the printing applications that this lens would be used for.
