Hey there Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
Offline
From the description below the vid:
"The video is a series of quick stills I took of the lens. I have also included video of the SIMULATED magnification. In fact the maximum video telephoto of this SIMULATION still just falls short of 3700mm in 35mm terms. So the 5200mm would be much closer & far sharper & distortion free with no nasty CA. The video was shot with an SD 16x9 2/3" camcorder with a SD TV video lens using multiple optical extenders. If the actual 5200mm was hooked up to a video camera we'd probably be seeing a close up on an eye. To make it clear - the VIDEO IS SIMULATED - not shot with the actual 5200mm lens - since it's a "PRIME" - How could it be zooming? And of course there would be no nasty CA, edge blur, or fringing issues."
"The video is a series of quick stills I took of the lens. I have also included video of the SIMULATED magnification. In fact the maximum video telephoto of this SIMULATION still just falls short of 3700mm in 35mm terms. So the 5200mm would be much closer & far sharper & distortion free with no nasty CA. The video was shot with an SD 16x9 2/3" camcorder with a SD TV video lens using multiple optical extenders. If the actual 5200mm was hooked up to a video camera we'd probably be seeing a close up on an eye. To make it clear - the VIDEO IS SIMULATED - not shot with the actual 5200mm lens - since it's a "PRIME" - How could it be zooming? And of course there would be no nasty CA, edge blur, or fringing issues."
Offline
I'm starting to think it is fake. All the images I found of the lens are in this video, (same guy in the photo) and two black and white shots. The build quality looks really bad and what kinda base is that? No wheels, no protective case. It may have started as an April fool's prank at Canon (the b&w photo with the rifle sites on it). The color shots with the video look like a home build. I could not find a photo or video taken with that lens. I'd think Canon would have showcased it's capabilities at the time.
Offline
Right there with ya, Greg. The April Fools joke was what passed thru my head, tried to find dates but vid was a November one, nothing else found. And the overall look of the thing seems amateurish, tacky. The "mount" at the back looks as if it was harvested from a scrapyard. Canon would have a clean, polished piece if it were as "groundbreaking" as its supposed to be, methinks. Same with the base it sits on. corroded tubing, crappy welding on the front right bracket. Again, not what Canon would do. Add that the video is admittedly NOT through the thing. I call B(ogu)S.
OP
Offline
For what it's worth, this article states there were three of these lenses made and one sold on Ebay for $50k. The description in the video states that the he only used stills of the lens and that the video was simulated. That doesn't mean that this lens doesn't exist. Seems to be a lot of articles out there about this lens.
petapixel.com
Some more info:
Also found this B&W image of the lens on a mount with a seat reminiscent of a larger telescope.
11 of the Most Interesting Lenses in the History of Photography
For almost two centuries, the science and art of photography has allowed people to capture the world around them through carefully crafted lenses.
petapixel.com
Some more info:
Also found this B&W image of the lens on a mount with a seat reminiscent of a larger telescope.
Last edited:
OP
Offline
Speaking of big lenses, the biggest I have is my Sigma 150-600mm. It's big but at about 4lbs, it is quite hand-holdable, at least for short periods. Mine is the "Contemporary" (reader cheaper) version. There is also a "Sport" version that costs more than twice as much and weights a full 2.3 lbs more! The IQ on both lenses, for all the reviews I've seen, is nearly identical. Unless you're really pixel peeping you would not see any difference. So what do you get for more than twice the cost? Better build quality and better weather-proofing. I could;d only see buying that lens if I was earning a living with photography and need to be out in extreme weather often.
This is me shooting the Solar Eclipse in 2017 with the Sigma Lens and a 7D Mark II crop sensor.
This is me shooting the Solar Eclipse in 2017 with the Sigma Lens and a 7D Mark II crop sensor.
Offline
Extreme long lenses tended to be a "nice-to-have" for the work I used to do. The same with extreme wide-angle optics. And on both ends of that range they tend to be hyper expensive. It has been rare for me to use anything beyond a 300mm, though I do own a 400mm Soligor F-mount. Now, with the DSLR's and the range of AF glass available, what used to be six or seven primes we've covered with three zooms. Effectively range from full-frame equivalent of 15mm to 450mm.
Offline
Well, I'm still not convinced. I've seen those sites and they all circle back to the same two sources which are not Canon. The Ebay posting I see shows a price of $45,000 with no bids. There are differences with the lens between the B&W shot and the color. The round barrel is a different color. The grey in the color shot looks like a cheap spray, which is chipping off. Note under the chipping is not black. The handles at the bottom are different. The rear set is further forward in the B&W shot. Also, I don't see any mounting points for the spotting scopes (side and top) in the color photos.
OP
Offline
It is true enough that longer and ultra-wide glass can get very expensive. Longer zooms get exponentially more expensive as the f-stop goes down. My Sigma is more of a poor man's zoom (under $1000) but it's apature only opens to 5.6 on the wide end and 6.3 on the long end. Compare its price to a Canon 200-400 f4 at $11,000! Or a 400mm f2.8 prime at $12,000 - yikes! If I were going on a Safari to Africa I might spend a few hundred and rent one of those, but unless I got a job with Nat Geo, I could never see myself laying out that kind of money for a lens.
Offline
A friendly reminder - be careful what links you click on here. If a link is posted by someone you don't know, or the URL looks fishy, DON'T CLICK. Spammers sometimes post links that lead to sites that can infect your computer, so be mindful what you click.