SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Check this bad boy out:<p> <A HREF="http://www.video.bhphotovideo.com/?fr_story=ce11c4ef8000f044fc9bd67263a0bc7bb155dc9e&rf=bm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.video.bhphotovideo....rf=bm</A> <p>An oldie but still badass.<p>From B&H's used dept;<br> <I>They say lightning never strikes twice, but Canon EF 1200.5.6L USM lenses apparently do. Last year we had one of these rare birds in stock for a short while (read all about it <A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp" TARGET="_blank">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/fi...s.jsp</A>) and it created quite a stir. Available as a special order product back in the mid 90's, there are fewer than 20 of these hand-made super-telephoto lenses in existence. Taking in a field-of-view of a mere 2°, the Canon EF 1200.5.6L USM contains 13 hand-cut and polished elements (2 fluorite) in 10 groups. The lens weighs a hefty 36 lb, has a length of 33", a 9" front element, and minimum focus of 45.9'. There are lugs for a neck strap, which means whoever designed this thing had a wicked sense of humor. Read Bryan Carnathan's in depth review of the Canon EF 1200.5.6L USM</I>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Yep - gotta' love those white lenses with the little red rings. I only have one that color, and it's just 1/6 the FL of that monster. - Stu
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: (sapearl)

I have an L that is 1/3 that sucka. Its the 100-400L IS, old design but still works wonders.<p>Though my favorite L lens in my arsenal is the 135mm F2, this thing is incredibly sharp, with amazing contrast and color!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

My arsenal:<p>16-35 2.8L<br>24-105 4.0L IS<br>70-200 4.0L IS<br>70-200 2.8L IS<br>100-400 4.5-5.6L IS<br>100 2.8 Macro<br>50 1.4<p>EOS 1D Mark III<br>EOS 5D<br> <br>Looking at 24-70L. Rebates out now. I'd kill for a 200 2.0L or 300 2.8L Like they say, there is no going back once you go to "L." <p><br> <A HREF="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PromotionsAct" TARGET="_blank">http://www.usa.canon.com/consu...nsAct</A>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re: (Kirb)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Kirb</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My arsenal:<p>16-35 2.8L<br>24-105 4.0L IS<br>70-200 4.0L IS<br>70-200 2.8L IS<br>100-400 4.5-5.6L IS<br>100 2.8 Macro<br>50 1.4<p>EOS 1D Mark III<br>EOS 5D<br> <br>Looking at 24-70L. Rebates out now. I'd kill for a 200 2.0L or 300 2.8L Like they say, there is no going back once you go to "L." <br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>Nice collection Kirb!!<p>Me:<br>24-105 F4 L IS<br>135 F2 L<br>100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS<br>50 F1.4<p>EOS 5D<br>EOS 1Ds<p>Since you have the 24-105 do you need the 24-70? I have read countless comparisons and I still don't know which is better. I do like the speed of the 24-70 but love the reach and IS of the 24-105.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>850arrrsaylikepirate</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>Nice collection Kirb!!<p>Me:<br>24-105 F4 L IS<br>135 F2 L<br>100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS<br>50 F1.4<p>EOS 5D<br>EOS 1Ds<p>Since you have the 24-105 do you need the 24-70? I have read countless comparisons and I still don't know which is better. I do like the speed of the 24-70 but love the reach and IS of the 24-105.</TD></TR></TABLE>I am wrestling with that thought, though I've read the 24-70 may be a sharper lenses across the focal range than the 24-105. Plus it stops down to 2.8 vs. 4.0 with the 24-105...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Re: (Kirb)

Since the 24-70 is on the old side, Canon may have plans to revamp it soon. This is just a complete guess though.<p>Yeah the 24-105 does have distortion at 24 and vignetting too. As for sharpness I have read that both lenses are about the same.<p>The only reason I would spring for the 24-70 is the 2.8F. Which I have thought of doing. Then I get the urge for the 16-35 L lens... <p>Which I see you have, how is it??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

I know a number of folks who have the "brick" (24-70) and really love it..... sharp, bright but a bit on the heavy side.<p>When I got my first 5D it was matched to the 24-105 which has probably produced around 90% of my work. It's my mainstay at weddings and other social events, and is a wonderful walkaround for urban landsapes as well as hiking.<p>As far as the vignetting goes, that is somewhat exagerated. Some is there, but it's quite minor, no worse than any of the traditional film WA's, and can easily be dealt with in PS if it's an issue. It is just too convenient a focal length for me and has paid for itself many times over. It basically replaces four fixed FL lenses I used when I shot medium format.<p>Althought the 24-105 is an f/4 lens, it is IS so that gives you the equivalent of at least f/2 under the right conditions. Most of my wedding work is done with bounced flash, but when I need to go without strobe that lens comes through just fine.<p>That 16-35 is a terrific lens - but a bit too pricey for my use. So I took the cheaper road and got the 17-40 which is very very good at less than half the price. It also has the same filter size as my 70-200 and 24-105 so I can share my CPL between the three. - Stu<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>850arrrsaylikepirate</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Since the 24-70 is on the old side, Canon may have plans to revamp it soon. This is just a complete guess though.<p>Yeah the 24-105 does have distortion at 24 and vignetting too. As for sharpness I have read that both lenses are about the same.<p>The only reason I would spring for the 24-70 is the 2.8F. Which I have thought of doing. Then I get the urge for the 16-35 L lens... <p>Which I see you have, how is it??</TD></TR></TABLE>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Re: (sapearl)

I too love my 24-105 and its definitely my primary lens, well that and the 50 1.4F.<p>I love that little bad boy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

16-35 is a great WA lens. Sharp. The 24-105 is my bread and butter lens. I use that lens the majority of the time on the 1D Mark III. If I am shooting something big close then I also use the full frame 5D with the 16-35 as was the case with that big UP Western Pacific Heritage SD70 ACe loco up in Portola, CA...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Re: (Kirb)

I digged those train pics. My next lens will probably be the 16-35.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

I agree about that 135 f/2 Joe. I was finally able to purchase one earlier this year and recently used it for portrait work on a project I'm doing for the local Adoption Network. <p>I was photographing handicapped children for a gallery presentation and that f/2 allowed my to use the necessary higher shutter speeds to track the kids as they wobbled around the room. They were charming and lovable subjects, but challenging to keep in frame and focus. DOF at f/2 at minimum focusing is razor thin, and you have to pick your focusing points very carefully for the desired effect. But I agree, it truly is a wonderful lens Joe.<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>850arrrsaylikepirate</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">........Though my favorite L lens in my arsenal is the 135mm F2, this thing is incredibly sharp, with amazing contrast and color!!</TD></TR></TABLE>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Re: (sapearl)

How about that lens hood?? I thought my lens came with the wrong hood.<p>I use the 135 F2 for most of my portrait shoots. The bokeh is beautiful, its razor sharp, its fast, its a gem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

I know what you mean about the hood Joe - I'd been used the petal shaped "tulip" hoods on my other L's.... and then I get this one which is similar to what came with my 85 f/1.8. Although in it's defense, it is thicker and much more substantial than the bendable hood that came with that shorter lens.<p>I'm looking forward to using the 135 at one of my upcoming weddings. - Stu<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>850arrrsaylikepirate</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How about that lens hood?? I thought my lens came with the wrong hood.<p>I use the 135 F2 for most of my portrait shoots. The bokeh is beautiful, its razor sharp, its fast, its a gem.</TD></TR></TABLE>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,409 Posts
Re: (850arrrsaylikepirate)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>850arrrsaylikepirate</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How about that lens hood?? I thought my lens came with the wrong hood.<p>I use the 135 F2 for most of my portrait shoots. The bokeh is beautiful, its razor sharp, its fast, its a gem.</TD></TR></TABLE>According to the-digital-pcture website: "The Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Lens is shipped with a plain round but large-for-the-lens-size ET-78II lens hood.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Re: (Kirb)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Kirb</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">According to the-digital-pcture website: "The Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Lens is shipped with a plain round but large-for-the-lens-size ET-78II lens hood.'</TD></TR></TABLE><p>The hood is huge! I didn't think that it would be that big for such a moderately sized lens.<p>It works as a great front element protector too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
I was just told last night about that 1200mm. $120,000? It would take just a few paid photos to pay for that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Re: (PPower)

Well, that would depend upon what publication you're shooting for <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> .<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>PPower</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I was just told last night about that 1200mm. $120,000? It would take just a few paid photos to pay for that one.</TD></TR></TABLE>
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top