this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
289 points (98.0% liked)
Photography
6679 readers
58 users here now
A community to post about photography:
We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meh. You too can achieve a functional depth of field of somewhere between 3 to 4 inches at 30 feet, wide open.
I get it, this is one of those famous strokes of lightning, a legendary article that is spoken about only because of its supposed desirability, like a first run Black Lotus or a T latch Benchmade 42 or a pre-NFA Tommy Gun. Rare, neat, and widely coveted. Own one and you become a rock star, albeit possibly only in your own mind.
What are you going to do with it?
It's too short for birds and wildlife and too long for astrophotography, macro, portraiture, or the street. In reality this was a special purpose lens with a niche application — basically, sports photography — which nowadays probably wouldn't find much time mounted on a pro's or even enthusiastic amateur's camera because modern options are more versatile and don't suffer many major deficiencies in the narrow departments where this may confer an advantage.
I can think of better ways to spend $6000 on glass, personally.
I dont think there is such thing.
This fills the niche of night-tele, if you want to take pictures of mid sized nocturnal animals for example.
There isn't, but anyone who's taking long shots at planets and galaxies is probably hooking their camera body up to a telescope and a star tracker, not a $6000 vintage lens.
If you want the Milky Way band or any of that kind of kidney you want a wide angle lens with a big fat aperture on it, not a mid-telephoto one.
This is a lens from the early 1980s. Agree that it's niche, but it seems very fit for purpose as a lower light sports (dawn/dusk/indoors) lens. Depending on the size of wildlife and your patience it could also be a fine wildlife lens.
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that you buy one of these today. However, $6k doesn't seem that far off today's pricing. Sony's 300mm f/2.8 retails for $6.7k.
I would probably get a decent amount of use out of a modern version of this lens due to kids in sports, but I'm not about to buy one due to $$. I'll hold out for sunny days/earlier matches or rent a f/2.8 zoom for the occasional indoor ice show.
Indeed. Due to the increased light sensitivity of modern cameras, those ƒ/2.8 options probably are the modern equivalent to this lens.
As an amateur photographer, 200mm is one of my favourite focal lengths. Very versatile and gives me opportunity for interesting verticality in my photos (I live in a fairly vertical city). Is it optimal for anything? No. Optimal lenses are for professional photographers who bitch and moan about no-one wanting their boring-ass photos that might as well be AI-slop.
The 70-200 (many choices available) is one of the best optics available.
With the key distinction that it can go down to 70.
200mm is as short as my big bird lens goes, just for sake of example, and that's already enough of a telephoto that I often physically cannot stand far away enough from people and people-scale subjects to get them into frame.
There's always the "Bigma" (the infamous Sigma 50-500). Also a pretty cool piece of glas, but it's starting to get a bit heavy.