History Lesson: Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x Lens Images

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/history-lesson-canon-fdn-1200-f5-6l-1-4x-lens-images/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/history-lesson-canon-fdn-1200-f5-6l-1-4x-lens-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x


</strong><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/12/correction-and-history-lesson-about-built-in-teleconverters-in-canon-lenses/" target="_blank">We posted about the FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x lens</a>, which was the first Canon lens to have a built in teleconverter. I was having a hard time find a photograph of one, and apparently only 5 of these lenses were ever made and never went to production.</p>
<p>Thankfully, Phil from Australia scanned and sent us some images of said lens in action. These images are from the Easter Bike Races in Bathurst, Australia. Canon Australia had one ”on loan for a few years”, until EOS was launched in 1987 and these lenses became EF mount without the 1.4 teleconverter.</p>
<p><em>Thanks Phil</em></p>
<div id="attachment_12210" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fdn1200_01.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-12210" title="fdn1200_01" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fdn1200_01-575x418.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="418" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">FDn 1200mm f/5.6L 1.4x | Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_12211" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fdn1200_02.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-12211" title="fdn1200_02" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fdn1200_02-575x504.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="504" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">FDn 1200mm f/5.6L 1.4x | Click for Larger</p></div>
<p> </p>
<div id="attachment_12212" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fdn1200_03.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-12212" title="fdn1200_03" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fdn1200_03-575x448.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="448" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">FDn 1200mm f/5.6L 1.4x | Click for Larger</p></div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[dolina]

I wonder whether the video head and tripod legs weighed as much as the 1200mm!

 

[PeterJ]

It's interesting the size of the bulge on the teleconverter, looking at that I can see how the converter could easily be moved out of the way. Anyone know how it works internally on the new 200-400? That's quite small by comparison but I thought being at the rear the teleconverter elements would have to be about the same for any focal length.

 

[weekendshooter]

It's interesting the size of the bulge on the teleconverter, looking at that I can see how the converter could easily be moved out of the way. Anyone know how it works internally on the new 200-400? That's quite small by comparison but I thought being at the rear the teleconverter elements would have to be about the same for any focal length.

Uh, what? The 200-400 has a similar bulge, and it apparently drew the ire of Canon's testers, according to a previous post here.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I posted an image from the 1984 LA Olympics in the forum a few weeks ago that has two FD 1200mm lenses in it.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11025.msg197916#msg197916

I guess I should have searched here.

 

[TexPhoto]

It's interesting the size of the bulge on the teleconverter, looking at that I can see how the converter could easily be moved out of the way. Anyone know how it works internally on the new 200-400? That's quite small by comparison but I thought being at the rear the teleconverter elements would have to be about the same for any focal length.

Uh, what? The 200-400 has a similar bulge, and it apparently drew the ire of Canon's testers, according to a previous post here.

I think he means the bulge on the 200-400 is significantly smaller, and it is. If you picture a whole 1.4X converter swapping in and out, you would need a big bulge. But of course most of a normal 1.4X is just the lens tube, the structure that holds the camera and larger lens. The actual glass elements are way smeller.

But how about this? I don't want to see pictures of this lens. I want to see pictures taken with this lens! And good photos. Not pictures of NY city buildings taken from across the river. Show me some of those sports pics this lens was supposedly used for. NASA rockets going up? Let me see. Spy photos? Sure, why not.

 

[Canon Rumors]

It's interesting the size of the bulge on the teleconverter, looking at that I can see how the converter could easily be moved out of the way. Anyone know how it works internally on the new 200-400? That's quite small by comparison but I thought being at the rear the teleconverter elements would have to be about the same for any focal length.

Uh, what? The 200-400 has a similar bulge, and it apparently drew the ire of Canon's testers, according to a previous post here.

I think he means the bulge on the 200-400 is significantly smaller, and it is. If you picture a whole 1.4X converter swapping in and out, you would need a big bulge. But of course most of a normal 1.4X is just the lens tube, the structure that holds the camera and larger lens. The actual glass elements are way smeller.

But how about this? I don't want to see pictures of this lens. I want to see pictures taken with this lens! And good photos. Not pictures of NY city buildings taken from across the river. Show me some of those sports pics this lens was supposedly used for. NASA rockets going up? Let me see. Spy photos? Sure, why not.

I'm searching for some, the lens is so rare that photos seem to be too.

 

[TexPhoto]

Awesome! Hope that did not come across as criticism. Just me really wanting to see what this lens can do. Really appreciate the info and pictures found so far.

I wonder about he use of this lens for sports. I know shooting from the end zone at a football game, my 400mm f2.8 seems to be pretty long. I do alternate between a FF and 7D, and used to own a 1D4. I will sometimes drop in my 1.4X or 2X, but rarely get any keepers. Of course i can go up in the top row of stands with the teleconverters, and they d better up there. And there is always the "headshot" of the coach or key player from across the field...

The Sigma 200-500 f2.8 seems to suffer from the same malady. It's easy to find photos of it. Not easy to find pictures taken with it, except corny "review" pictures.

 

[shtfmeister]

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9725/903901132172148.jpg
here ya go

 

[dr croubie]

But how about this? I don't want to see pictures of this lens. I want to see pictures taken with this lens! And good photos. Not pictures of NY city buildings taken from across the river. Show me some of those sports pics this lens was supposedly used for. NASA rockets going up? Let me see. Spy photos? Sure, why not.

I'm searching for some, the lens is so rare that photos seem to be too.

Yeah, it's kinda hard searching for photos in the days before EXIF (and especially when it was the subject that counted, not many people went around advertising what lens they used...)

 

[TexPhoto]

Doing some Google searching I found that another company (rhymes with Flycon) has/had a similar lens. The explanation of why the lens was made is interesting.

http://www.nikon.com/about/feelnikon/recollections/r16_e/index.htm

 

[ddashti]

Does that mean the EF models don't have a 1.4x built-in teleconverter?

 

[M.ST]

I have the EF 1200 mm f/5.6 lens an I can confirm that the lens don´t have a build in TC.

Only the FDn 1200 mm f/5.6 lens have a built in 1.4X TC.

 

[dolina]

I have the EF 1200 mm f/5.6 lens an I can confirm that the lens don´t have a build in TC.

Only the FDn 1200 mm f/5.6 lens have a built in 1.4X TC.

Can I visit? I always wanted to see one in person.

 

[danski0224]

I have the EF 1200 mm f/5.6 lens an I can confirm that the lens don´t have a build in TC.

Only the FDn 1200 mm f/5.6 lens have a built in 1.4X TC.

Can you share pictures of it and taken with it?

 

[hendrik-sg]

Hallo M.ST.

Wow great for you that you have to possibility of owning one of the rarest and most exotic lenses.

I would also like to ask you for a comparision of this lens with other lenses, maybe the 600 + 2x or the 800+ 1.4x.

Nowhere in the web are any informations about the optical quality of this lens, just the specs whick are spectacular without any doubt. Maybe Mr Carnathan from "the-digital-picture.com" would like to shoot his standard comparisions with this lens.

Thanks in advance for sharing

 

[PeterJ]

It's interesting the size of the bulge on the teleconverter, looking at that I can see how the converter could easily be moved out of the way. Anyone know how it works internally on the new 200-400? That's quite small by comparison but I thought being at the rear the teleconverter elements would have to be about the same for any focal length.

Uh, what? The 200-400 has a similar bulge, and it apparently drew the ire of Canon's testers, according to a previous post here.

I think he means the bulge on the 200-400 is significantly smaller, and it is. If you picture a whole 1.4X converter swapping in and out, you would need a big bulge. But of course most of a normal 1.4X is just the lens tube, the structure that holds the camera and larger lens. The actual glass elements are way smeller.

Indeed that's what I meant, and taking a look at my extender see what Tex means so I should be more observant. Kind of disappointing though, I'd hoped Canon had developed some sort of TARDIS-like technology ;D.

 

[TexPhoto]

Awesome. Like a stopped clock, every so often am right! One of the threads about the 200-400 has a video of the extender swapping in and out, so you can get a better idea of it's size.

And MS.T owns a 1200mm? Double Awesome!. Party at MS.T's house!

 

[toddbuchanan]

Olympics and Pulitzers: I thought I would pass along my experience with Canon 1200/5.6 from the 84' Olympics which led to a great shot and part of a Pulitzer prize.

I was working at the Orange County Register in SoCal and was assigned to cover the 100K Cycling race in Mission Viejo. To get the shot I wanted, I would have to camp out over night in the backyard of local that looked straight down at the finish line but I was going to need a monster of a lens and when I heard about the Canon 1200, I knew it would do the trick. I camped out the night before and as the race unfolded the next day it came down to a sprint to the finish between the Canadian and Alex Grewal of the US and was literally so close at the finish line that there was no jubilation until about 50 yards past the finish line. It was perfect from my vantage point and a nightmare for the pool photographers who were getting his rear-end since the Olypic Pool position was right at the finish line!

Then it was topped off when the next year, the Register was selected for a Pulitzer prize for our Olympic Photo coverage and that images was part of the entry.

I had other occasions to use the lens for other sports events, but in SoCal, you had to be careful using it on a hot day at ground level as it would pick up so much of the heat waves coming of the ground, that it would compormise your focus....They are a pretty amazing piece of glass and a fond memory for me!

Todd Buchanan
www.toddbuchanan.com

Photo: Mission Viejo, CA- Los Angeles Olympics 1984 Alexi Grewal wins the Gold medal in the 100 Kilometer bicycle road race to win for the United States team.

 

[RLPhoto]

Simply an extreme lens in every way.

Extremely Heavy.

Extremely Expensive.

Extremely Awesome.

8)