I used the older FD version here in the states to photograph a football (American) game when I worked for Sports Illustrated. It was indeed awesome. Not only in size, weight, and sharpness, but the length and DOF was very difficult to manage. Remember, we're talking pre-autofocus here! Quite frankly, I think the 600 F:4 with a 1.4 extender (although it is not 1200mm) is sharper and a whole lot easier to handle. I do not use 2X extenders because the 3 that i have used never were sharp enough. You must realize that sports photographers almost always shoot wide open.
I owned 2 800mm F:5.6 FD lenses, but was never really satisfied with them wide open. One was noticeably than the other wide open, but almost equal at F:8-11. I did an SI assignment on a football coach and used the 1000mm F:5.6 sonnar "mirror" lens (adapted to Nikon) with super results from across the field. It was sharp DOF was almost nil at 150 meters, and it required a monster Gitzo tripod for support and stability. The circumference is huge. In fact, the lens cover had been lost and a plastic trash can lid was used in its place. Anything over 600mm is a very specialized chunk of glass with limited use for anyone. On a D10 it would be a nightmare! The 1200 is nice to dream and talk about, but leave it to TIME/LIFE and National Geographic to spend that much money. Uncle Manny > [Original Message] > From: Stefan Gerris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/30/2003 8:23:24 PM > Subject: RE: EOS EF 1200mm f/5.6 > > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
