I think i read somewhere that there may only be 8-12 of the original EF version of the 1200 ever made. So yeah, not a cash cow, more of a statement/specialty/made-to-order kind of thing.
Size and affordability are relative of course but a 1200mm f8 has exactly the same sized front element as a 600mm f4. The EF 600mm f4 III is currently $12,999, I’d expect the RF 600 to be a couple of thousand more and an RF 1200mm several thousand on top, so maybe $18,999 or $19,999.Yes, but the original was 5.6, this one would be F8. That means it will be a much smaller and actually affordable lens compared to the EF.
Size and affordability are relative of course but a 1200mm f8 has exactly the same sized front element as a 600mm f4. The EF 600mm f4 III is currently $12,999, I’d expect the RF 600 to be a couple of thousand more and an RF 1200mm several thousand on top, so maybe $18,999 or $19,999.
so yes, much smaller and cheaper than the EF 1200mm but not small or cheap by practically any other measure.
I'm wondering how much the EF version cost new, all those years ago. Surely not $120,000k back then. Collector's item now.Yes, that's what i meant exactly. For 20K some photographers or companies will be able to buy it, compared to the 120K and very limited EF version.
If you are using RF, the EF mk2 lens with adapter weighs 1,700 g and is 217mm long, versus 1,365g and 207mm. Not a huge difference in size but you get 100mm extra focal length (and yes you lose ⅔ of an aperture). The 350g difference is far from trivial. For my usage having a maximum reach of 500mm makes the 1.4x extender superfluous, I need more than 400mm but 500 is OK versus 560mm for the 400mm + 1.4, so one item less in the camera bag.
That's the article I was thinking of, but it wasn't there. I then thought to check Wikipedia.
According to Wikipedia the MSRP was $89,750 (so I got the first digit right but for all that couldn't have been much more wrong) and it has been sold used for $180L
Exactly, can’t see a reason to update, I’m just keen to go all RF-mount. That said, I do see the value in using an EF-EOS R adapter to add a filter.The EF8-15mm/4 is good for what it is. Could be some quality updates but hard to see it being part of a 2021 release schedule. Until the recent Nikon version, it was unique in any system.
No it doesn't. Canon never sold the FD mount versions, they were all owned by Canon Japan and lent out to suitable organizations. The FD versions had a built in TC too which was dropped for the EF versions.Yup. More than a house in many areas. It was also originally an FD mount, then they were all sent back to Canon to be converted. Though rumor has it that one never got sent back and still exists somewhere as an FD mount...
No it doesn't. Canon never sold the FD mount versions, they were all owned by Canon Japan and lent out to suitable organizations. The FD versions had a built in TC too which was dropped for the EF versions.
I'm not sure I follow the semantic difference between built in and semi permanently mounted. But as these pictures clearly illustrate it was built in, very similar to the modern EF 200-400.The TC’s weren’t built in actually, more of mounted on semi permanently.
“All of the FD 1200mm f/5.6L lenses were eventually shipped back to Canon in Japan. Later in the 1980s, these lenses were converted to the EF mount.“
Maybe it was Canon that left one as an FD. I remember seeing something about it several years back that one wasn’t converted back.
Ouch! So, just guestimating, about $200,000k in today's $. Of course, the FD's were MF right? https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspxThe original price was $90 000. You could order it with $10 000 deposit and took 18 months to manufacture it.
But you are referring (at this moment) to super-tele in the EF line, and not the non-existent RF line. As far as RF super-tele, you have absolutely no idea yet what they will weigh.
Then I kindly turn you towards a look at the other RF lenses that are already here. What is lighter than an EF 85mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.2L, EF 28-70mm f/2.8L? Any of the RF's? No. Sure, the RF 70-200 is lighter than the EF version. Isn't that just about it? The Canon EF 24-70 is 95gr lighter than the RF version. So where is this advantage of RF over EF? I don't see it when it comes to weight, which for some reason, people keep trying to claim.
You claim there is a weight advantage to RF. I don't see it.
I don't understand the design history of long white primes? Sure I do. You claim that the reason to switch to RF long white primes is for weight savings... with absolutely zero evidence. Zero. That's what makes the discussion moot. Has absolutely zero to do with me being the target market or not. You have absolutely no idea whether or not an RF 600mm f/4L will be lighter in weight than the current EF 600mm f/4L. No idea. Then, lets say it saves 4oz. That's worth the upgrade for a lens mostly mounted on a gimbal? Ok.You're not the target customer for the super teles so you do not understand the design history of the long white primes.
As such further discussion is moot.