this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
286 points (98.0% liked)
Photography
6322 readers
39 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
At what point does it stop being a camera with attached lens and start being a lens with a camera dangling off it?
Long before this. My RF 200-800 will handily balance on its tripod foot on a flat surface, with my camera body attached to it or not. It weighs close to five pounds, and whether there's a camera stuck to the end is really only a matter of fine details at that point. And that's really still just a consumer lens.
From the manual of the lovely beast that is the RF200-800:
Since the lens is heavier than the camera, turn the camera when attaching or detaching the lens. Ensuring that the lens can rest safely on its own is recommended, such as first mounting it on a tripod.
And in their promo literature they show some doofus smiling his stupid rictus smile and dangling it off of his neck with the strap on his camera, not the beefy strap mounts that are right there on the lens itself. Which are there for that very reason.
I have to admit my strap is on the camera, but with that lens the strap is more of a fall-back support, in case my hands slip or I otherwise mess up the support. It's actually far too heavy to dangle round the neck for anything but a grip change or putting in a camera rucksack. And I walk cradling it like a baby! (strap loose about my neck) Same reason I always have the hood attached if its out of the rucksack - a safety measure in case I drop it or knock against something, not on the off-chance of flare.
I still don't trust it. I've got a set of those strap quick release thingummies on both my lens and camera, so swapping the strap back and forth isn't particularly onerous.
I usually carry mine over the shoulder like a bazooka, using the tripod foot as a handle. This has the side effect of making me highly prominent and also signals to any other nearby gawpers who are desperately pinching at the screens on their iPhones as if that's going to help them any that I am a Very Serious Photographer, and they aren't.
Once you start hitting telephoto lengths, the lens generally matches the price of a current camera.
Shows up palletized, via LTL freight. Dayum.
I would literally never financially recover from this and I need to stop looking at this filth
Those are rookie numbers
Almost bought one but changed my mind when I saw it doesn’t come with free shipping.
I mean, if we’re including telescopes into the mix, then those are rookie numbers
Sure, but that’s a one-off build, not a production model. The planewave is an off-the-shelf product.
thow a 3x speedbooster on that and its a f2 as well :D
F/6 at 6000mm is not too shabby.
Funny because I have that exact telescope and my Sony 600 mm with the X2 Multiplier Takes Way better fucking Astro shots
... But that's only f/2.2 - huge, but worse focal ratio.
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.
too long for astrophotography
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.
I want a 16-1200mm lens, with a 300mm front element for f/mount_limited-f/4 aperture size, that weighs less than 2kg and is fully aberration corrected & costs under $10,000. And world peace, while we're at it. That's probably easier.
variable fresnel mirror optics have entered the chat (i made that up, but fresnel mirrors exist and and maybe one could use a 300mm DLP micro mirror device and somehow improve it in a way that the mirrors can be angled in variety of angles instead of just 2, mirrors also have no chromatic aberration)
edit: holy shit the idea isnt even new https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-020-00420-6
Canon L fan over here, but I still feel called out.
For a moment, I thought I was looking at a magical cup that fits any cup-holder, or tries to rather.
I realized where I was before trying to judge such function, but please don't confuse me for someone who would treat an un-covered lense like-so.
No. But in that vein, allow me to introduce you to this.
Not a bad price, all things considered. I'm more in the marked for a draw-string thermal sleeve to fit a 1-liter Mt. Dew, and dishwasher un-safe is a no-go in this house, but that thing's so pretty its got me trying to come up with an excuse to buy it anyways.