# Save those pennies! A Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM is coming up for auction



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2021)

> If you’ve been saving your money for some RF lenses that you can’t get your hands on due to the manufacturing issues around the world, that may turn out to be for the best.
> Wetzlar Camera Auctions will have a Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM up for auction starting on October 9, 2021. How much will this lens fetch at auction? That’s tough to predict at the moment, but the EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM has sold a few times for more than $150,000 USD in the past.
> The Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM was released in July of 1993 as a built-to-order lens and retailed for around $100,000 USD. The number of these lenses out there is unknown, but it has been hypothesized that there are less than 20 of these lenses in existence.
> A Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM took about a year to build once it was ordered, as Canon could only manufacture about 2 of these a year because of the time required to form fluorite crystals.
> About the Canon...



Continue reading...


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 6, 2021)

Just: WOW!

I hope Canon/the owner offers together with this lens a free trial membership in your local gym to avoid postural defects, backache and herniated disks during transport and holding this lens.


----------



## ildyria (Jun 6, 2021)




----------



## dolina (Jun 6, 2021)

Photos from this camera will be stolen by some eco-mentalist doing fund raising and awareness campaigns with their org name on it.

They will only compensate the photographer/owner by crediting them, when they are caught.

Something to consider when raising funds for purchase.

Edit: Those opposed to my point of view should buy this $150,000 lens, if they can. 

Edit 2: Reading the responses tells me that they never created anything worth stealing.


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 6, 2021)

Anyone know what camera backpack I should use with this? Let's see: 36+ lbs. and 32+ inches length for lens then a camera body or two and a 1.4x and a 2.0xTC? Maybe a U-H**l Trailer?


----------



## wtlloyd (Jun 6, 2021)

This lens is merely a curiosity, a museum piece. Like the EF 200 f/1.8 or the EF 50 f/1.0, there are superior alternatives to owning a lens merely for bragging rights.
No one will be buying this because it out performs an EF600 f/4.0 L IS III and a 2X III.
It doesn't.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 6, 2021)

wtlloyd said:


> This lens is merely a curiosity, a museum piece. Like the EF 200 f/1.8, there are superior alternatives to owning a lens merely for bragging rights.
> No one will be buying this because it out performs an EF600 f/4.0 L IS and a 2X III.
> It doesn't.


But with a 2xTC it does outperform a 600 with two 2x TC’s  .... maybe......


----------



## wtlloyd (Jun 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But with a 2xTC it does outperform a 600 with two 2x TC’s  .... maybe......


If I thought for one minute you actually thought that, I'd tell you I have a potatocam I could sell you at a good price!


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 6, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No I’m not bothered by your vitriol, all it does for me personally is to give any other comments you make less weight or value.
> 
> You are an experienced big white owner and user, something the forum could benefit from, yet you limit your input across threads to bitching about non lens specific irrelevancies. Most people here are keen amateurs not professionals, many would be happy for their images to be used by charities and non profits because they are more worried about the wildlife they are photographing than recovering the cost of their big lens.
> 
> Yes unlawful image use is a problem, that is not limited to images shot with big whites, and it should be talked about, but not by hijacking every thread that has anything to do with a long lens.


Well some good news, I just read this morning that IG lost a lawsuit where they were allowing third parties to imbed photos from peoples accounts without fear of copyright infringement through a loophole. I think they won’t be able to get away with that in the future.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 6, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I’m holding out for the RF 1200mm f4L with the built in 1.4 teleconverter and rear ND filter holder.


----------



## peters (Jun 6, 2021)

Can it be used with the 2x extender? Would be F11 - which is totaly reasonable and usable on daylight! (I use the 2x extender with the 100-400 which works great :-D)
That would be a 2400mp :-D
You can mount that on an APS-C Sensor, resulting in 3840mm. 
It could be put on a 12k URSA camera (which is only 7000€ or something). - Thats 80 megapixel at 3840mm! So about the same framing as an 6826mm lense on a Canon R5!!!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2021)

peters said:


> Can it be used with the 2x extender? Would be F11 - which is totaly reasonable and usable on daylight! (I use the 2x extender with the 100-400 which works great :-D)
> That would be a 2400mp :-D
> You can mount that on an APS-C Sensor, resulting in 3840mm.
> It could be put on a 12k URSA camera (which is only 7000€ or something). - Thats 80 megapixel at 3840mm! So about the same framing as an 6826mm lense on a Canon R5!!!



It is compatible with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's. I've used the 800 with a 2x on safari for a couple of skittish animals and it did a fine job at f/11.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 6, 2021)

Nobody steals my photos. Waiting patiently for someone to flatter me. *sobbing a little*


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 6, 2021)

dolina said:


> Your lengthy response says different.
> 
> I invite everyone to look at my post history. I only bring up this warning when the topic falls into the category of the law of diminishing marginal utility.
> 
> ...


Well, at least you know there's a latrine at the top.


----------



## dolina (Jun 6, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody steals my photos. Waiting patiently for someone to flatter me. *sobbing a little*


Sir, to be honest I rather do your genre of photography for the past 2 decades. 

Thus avoiding all the virtue signaling yahoos in the process.


----------



## Floydian (Jun 6, 2021)

The lens was very long time ago (must have been in the 90's) on tour in Holland and I was able to make some test shots with it. From what I remember, the lens was very slow in focussing. I had the first edition of the 300 2.8L, compared to that one the difference in AF of the 1200 was a joke. In my opinion back then, the lens was not suitable for fast tracking sport events. Beside, I think the lens was 20 kilograms, insane heavy to carry around.
These days....it belongs in a museum.


----------



## becceric (Jun 7, 2021)

wtlloyd said:


> If I thought for one minute you actually thought that, I'd tell you I have a potatocam I could sell you at a good price!


Until now, I haven’t heard of a potatocam. Now that I’ve looked it up, I wonder if more than just a half baked idea, would this create a creamy bokeh.


----------



## becceric (Jun 7, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> Anyone know what camera backpack I should use with this? Let's see: 36+ lbs. and 32+ inches length for lens then a camera body or two and a 1.4x and a 2.0xTC? Maybe a U-H**l Trailer?


I’m hoping the next gen version will have 15 stops image stabilization for those hand held shots.


----------



## fariff (Jun 7, 2021)

So I coincidentally just did a video review on the FL 1200mm from 1972, Canon’s first 1200mm lens - aka the “poor man’s EF 1200mm” - the FL is only max f/11 but performs surprisingly well on an R5. It’s a very very niche piece of kit because of the focal length. Would have loved to do a side by side with the EF 1200mm but I can’t afford the insurance!


----------



## Chig (Jun 7, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Just: WOW!
> 
> I hope Canon/the owner offers together with this lens a free trial membership in your local gym to avoid postural defects, backache and herniated disks during transport and holding this lens.


Just get your butler and one of your footmen to carry it !


----------



## Chig (Jun 7, 2021)

wtlloyd said:


> This lens is merely a curiosity, a museum piece. Like the EF 200 f/1.8 or the EF 50 f/1.0, there are superior alternatives to owning a lens merely for bragging rights.
> No one will be buying this because it out performs an EF600 f/4.0 L IS III and a 2X III.
> It doesn't.


I think it probably does outperform the EF600 and 2X as that combo is f/8 which is a full stop slower.

The EF50 f/1.0 is actually reasonably affordable and no other AF lens is that bright so it's still a great lens if you can afford it and works great with bodies like the R5 and R6 and 1DXiii or any eos body. Check out Ken Rockwell's review https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm


----------



## KiagiJ (Jun 7, 2021)

fariff said:


> So I coincidentally just did a video review on the FL 1200mm from 1972, Canon’s first 1200mm lens - aka the “poor man’s EF 1200mm” - the FL is only max f/11 but performs surprisingly well on an R5. It’s a very very niche piece of kit because of the focal length. Would have loved to do a side by side with the EF 1200mm but I can’t afford the insurance!


Great video quality, review and humor !!!

You deserve 1000s of subscribers


----------



## fariff (Jun 7, 2021)

KiagiJ said:


> Great video quality, review and humor !!!
> 
> You deserve 1000s of subscribers



Haha thanks for the encouragement - first attempt at a review! Will try do more in the future


----------



## Bert63 (Jun 7, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No I’m not bothered by your vitriol, all it does for me personally is to give any other comments you make less weight or value.
> 
> You are an experienced big white owner and user, something the forum could benefit from, yet you limit your input across threads to bitching about non lens specific irrelevancies. Most people here are keen amateurs not professionals, many would be happy for their images to be used by charities and non profits because they are more worried about the wildlife they are photographing than recovering the cost of their big lens.
> 
> Yes unlawful image use is a problem, that is not limited to images shot with big whites, and it should be talked about, but not by hijacking every thread that has anything to do with a long lens.




Thanks for voicing a widely held opinion.


----------



## juststeve (Jun 7, 2021)

A couple of things. I never had my hands on the lens, but a friend did while on assignment (a loaner from Canon via employer). He remembered it and I remember his rememberance as 33 pounds, or a bit more than a pound an inch. 

Also, the variable pitch cam mentioned as an upgrade with 1200/5.6 being converted to the EF mount, might have actually existed with the FD version of the lens. Later versions of superteles in FD mount also had a varipitch cam for focusing. It started with the 400/4.5 which I owned and was introduced in 1978. The 500/4.5 and 800/5.6 and 400/2.8 in FD mount also had it. I owned and still own the 400/2.8 and had the 500/4.5 on loan from CPS. It slowed focusing speed at longer distances and was a tremendous advantage over Nikon lenses of the era, which were damn near impossible to focus accurately at longer distances.


----------



## Bert63 (Jun 7, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody steals my photos. Waiting patiently for someone to flatter me. *sobbing a little*



Post one Bro. I’ll steal it post it as my own and we can have drama. It’ll be awesome.


----------



## GoldWing (Jun 7, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> Not sure what that has to do with anything.
> 
> 
> "Someone who would never have paid you for using a photo is not paying you for using a photo"
> ...


Use watermarks... always. Sites like DPReview that will demand you not use watermarks in their rules and not allow links to your work are prime examples of where people's work is stolen. Always use watermarks!!!


----------



## Perio (Jun 7, 2021)

That's a lot of pennies to save...


----------



## dsut4392 (Jun 7, 2021)

dolina said:


> Your lengthy response says different.
> 
> I invite everyone to look at my post history. I only bring up this warning when the topic falls into the category of the law of diminishing marginal utility.
> 
> ...


Lurker/infrequent poster here - we get it, we've been warned. Can you please spare yourself the embarrassment and stop the off-topic whining?


----------



## Phil (Jun 7, 2021)

Floydian said:


> The lens was very long time ago (must have been in the 90's) on tour in Holland and I was able to make some test shots with it. From what I remember, the lens was very slow in focussing. I had the first edition of the 300 2.8L, compared to that one the difference in AF of the 1200 was a joke. In my opinion back then, the lens was not suitable for fast tracking sport events. Beside, I think the lens was 20 kilograms, insane heavy to carry around.
> These days....it belongs in a museum.


I got a chance to play with it many years ago as well you’re right it is slow to focus and it had to be set up on a massive video tripod so with the lens and tripod combined you aren’t taking it far without a pickup truck.


----------



## stefang (Jun 7, 2021)

Phil said:


> I got a chance to play with it many years ago as well you’re right it is slow to focus and it had to be set up on a massive video tripod so with the lens and tripod combined you aren’t taking it far without a pickup truck.


I got that opportunity too at the Photokina in Köln somewhere in the 90s. Canon had a row of their super-teles on a stand for the public to play with. I guess my EOS5 is one of the lucky few to have interfaced with this legend


----------



## Phil (Jun 7, 2021)

stefang said:


> I got that opportunity too at the Photokina in Köln somewhere in the 90s. Canon had a row of their super-teles on a stand for the public to play with. I guess my EOS5 is one of the lucky few to have interfaced with this legend


Lol I had an EOS 5 at the time to!


----------



## AlanF (Jun 7, 2021)

fariff said:


> So I coincidentally just did a video review on the FL 1200mm from 1972, Canon’s first 1200mm lens - aka the “poor man’s EF 1200mm” - the FL is only max f/11 but performs surprisingly well on an R5. It’s a very very niche piece of kit because of the focal length. Would have loved to do a side by side with the EF 1200mm but I can’t afford the insurance!


It was a fun review and I really like your understated sense of humour. In practice, I am now regularly using a 1000mm f/14 (= RF 100-500 + RF 2x TC) on my R5 for hand-held nature photography from close-up dragonflies to far-distant birds, as well as at in-between distances (and have used 2400mm with 6x of TCs on a 400mm/f4), and others are using the RF800 f/11 with TCs so the framing of a 1200mm f/11 is not that outlandish.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 7, 2021)

Will it come with a free RF adapter?


----------



## Cochese (Jun 7, 2021)

dolina said:


> Your lengthy response says different.
> 
> I invite everyone to look at my post history. I only bring up this warning when the topic falls into the category of the law of diminishing marginal utility.
> 
> ...


Do you strive to be this insufferable?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2021)

dolina said:


> I invite everyone to look at my post history. I only bring up this warning when the topic falls into the category of the law of diminishing marginal utility.


So even you recognize that your posts add insignificantly to the content of a topic.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 7, 2021)

Chig said:


> Just get your butler and one of your footmen to carry it





Hector1970 said:


> Will it come with a free RF adapter?


Is Canon a charity?


----------



## slclick (Jun 7, 2021)

I find most watermarks are better than the images they 'protect'


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 7, 2021)

wtlloyd said:


> This lens is merely a curiosity, a museum piece. Like the EF 200 f/1.8 or the EF 50 f/1.0, there are superior alternatives to owning a lens merely for bragging rights.
> No one will be buying this because it out performs an EF600 f/4.0 L IS III and a 2X III.
> It doesn't.


I wouldn't say "no" if someone gave it me as a birthday gift  In fact, I guess you'll hardly find any reliable lab test charts comparing its optical performance with a current EF600mm III lens 2.0x III extender combo, which would be interesting to see. But it would offer f/5.6 @ 1200mm instead of f/8.0, so if it is reasonably sharp in the center, it could outperform the combo in some lower light settings. I guess its AF could be noticeably slower, Canon's 1st generation USM drives weren't as fast as modern ones, this behemoth was introduced in 1993.

But, for sure, it is a rich collector's item now, for those guys with big shelves I fear. I personally regret that most probable perspective, because I think vintage gear should still be used, since it was made for photography, not for a shiny display.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 7, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> Will it come with a free RF adapter?


Of course, if it is a Rich Freak adapter


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 7, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody steals my photos. Waiting patiently for someone to flatter me. *sobbing a little*


Just relax. Real artists are always discovered when they have passed away... but I'd highly recommend to enjoy life before you get famous that way


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 7, 2021)

stefang said:


> I got that opportunity too at the Photokina in Köln somewhere in the 90s. Canon had a row of their super-teles on a stand for the public to play with. I guess my EOS5 is one of the lucky few to have interfaced with this legend


Do you still have your EOS 5? I'd never cleaned it's mount again after such an exquisite contact  

I so far had only the opportunity to try a 300-800mm Sigmonster on a Sigma booth once, but not with my own camera. Btw this lens was disappointingly unsharp - or out of focus, because the camera adapted wasn't properly micro-adjusted.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 7, 2021)

fariff said:


> So I coincidentally just did a video review on the FL 1200mm from 1972, Canon’s first 1200mm lens - aka the “poor man’s EF 1200mm” - the FL is only max f/11 but performs surprisingly well on an R5. It’s a very very niche piece of kit because of the focal length. Would have loved to do a side by side with the EF 1200mm but I can’t afford the insurance!


Thanx for sharing. Very funny, in particular the problem with those people who suspect that you are a sniper  . Using frequently a comparably "compact" EF 500mm lens for birding in a city I know what you mean from own experience. You can't hide such a big lens easily...


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 7, 2021)

fariff said:


> So I coincidentally just did a video review on the FL 1200mm from 1972, Canon’s first 1200mm lens - aka the “poor man’s EF 1200mm” - the FL is only max f/11 but performs surprisingly well on an R5. It’s a very very niche piece of kit because of the focal length. Would have loved to do a side by side with the EF 1200mm but I can’t afford the insurance!


Thanks for the entertaining video!
As I wrote in a former post, I too heard a few "funny" comments, when taking pictures of puffins In Brittany with my rapid focusing 560mm Leica lens, mounted on a shoulder stock, a very long lens...
She: "Is he trying to kill these poor little birds ? "
He: " No, darling, he wants to photograph the girls on the naturist beach"


----------



## Bert63 (Jun 7, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> Use watermarks... always. Sites like DPReview that will demand you not use watermarks in their rules and not allow links to your work are prime examples of where people's work is stolen. Always use watermarks!!!




Any watermark large enough to prevent theft will ruin the picture, and anything smaller will be cloned or cropped with ease.

NEXT!


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jun 8, 2021)

I bet a crop from the upcoming RF 600MM F4 gives you a better picture


----------



## GoldWing (Jun 8, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> Any watermark large enough to prevent theft will ruin the picture, and anythung smaller will be cloned or cropped with ease.
> 
> NEXT!


You need to protect your work and your client's property. Watermark across the entire frame. Paying for your work is a great way for people to enjoy it. Free is not even an option.


----------



## Bert63 (Jun 8, 2021)

GoldWing said:


> You need to protect your work and your client's property. Watermark across the entire frame. Paying for your work is a great way for people to enjoy it. Free is not even an option.


I’m not a pro and have no reason to become one. Turning a pleasure into a business is a great way to ruin it. I’m speaking from the experience of seeing what other people do to “protect” their images. The bottom line as far as I’m concerned is if you post it on the internet and someone wants it badly enough they’ll find a way to take it.


----------



## GoldWing (Jun 8, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I’m not a pro and have no reason to become one. Turning a pleasure into a business is a great way to ruin it. I’m speaking from the experience of seeing what other people do to “protect” their images. The bottom line as far as I’m concerned is if you post it on the internet and someone wants it badly enough they’ll find a way to take it.


Let me hold your wallet.... Since you're not a professional. You know we hate what we do for a living.


----------



## Fischer (Jun 8, 2021)

Once met an American tourist on Greenland with this lens. He liked to helicopter out and use it to shoot Ice Bears. He usually went there once a year. Its really very large and takes some handling to set up.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 8, 2021)

I’ve actually seen the 1200 with my own eyes at the airport I used to work once. Believe it was NatGeo people carrying it, two guys carrying it, just the lens, looked insane.

can you imagine when boarding ; “Sir, you are going to have to check that in”.


----------



## padam (Jun 8, 2021)

I've seen a fair few of these lenses changing hands online (the "cheapest" one popped on ebay from a bird photographer in Korea some years ago)

Looks like there is one here as well:







So I wonder if there are really only 20 of them existing or it is just a number to drive prices up, of course it could have been the same copy multiple times.

On the other hand, I never saw the Nikon 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 lens popping up, all-mechanical, no electronics to go wrong, the 1200mm f/5.6L is a risky buy in that regard (just like the 50mm f/1.0L).


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 8, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I’m not a pro and have no reason to become one. Turning a pleasure into a business is a great way to ruin it. I’m speaking from the experience of seeing what other people do to “protect” their images. The bottom line as far as I’m concerned is if you post it on the internet and someone wants it badly enough they’ll find a way to take it.


I'm absolutely convinced professional wildlife photographers, for instance, still enjoy their job, like many other pros.
And I believe you can't be good at something if you dislike what you're doing!
Just take a look at the Korean bird photographer in Padam's post. I'm sure he loves his job!


----------



## padam (Jun 8, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> I'm absolutely convinced professional wildlife photographers, for instance, still enjoy their job, like many other pros.
> And I believe you can't be good at something if you dislike what you're doing!
> Just take a look at the Korean bird photographer in Padam's post. I'm sure he loves his job!


No, William Tan is from Singapore, that one I saw on ebay South Korea was probably a different copy from someone else.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 8, 2021)

padam said:


> I've seen a fair few of these lenses changing hands online (the "cheapest" one popped on ebay from a bird photographer in Korea some years ago)
> 
> Looks like there is one here as well:
> 
> ...


Where is it in that video? He used the EF 600 f/4 III and the 100-500mm. Singapore is a great place for bird photography, and you can nip over to Malaysia for more.


----------



## padam (Jun 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Where is it in that video? He used the EF 600 f/4 III and the 100-500mm. Singapore is a great place for bird photography, and you can nip over to Malaysia for more.


2:07 the lens itself is not in the video.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 8, 2021)

padam said:


> 2:07 the lens itself is not in the video.


Thanks! It's not a very good shot. The white under the "ear" of the kingfisher is bleached and the beak disappears into the background and the colours aren't good.


----------



## fariff (Jun 8, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It was a fun review and I really like your understated sense of humour. In practice, I am now regularly using a 1000mm f/14 (= RF 100-500 + RF 2x TC) on my R5 for hand-held nature photography from close-up dragonflies to far-distant birds, as well as at in-between distances (and have used 2400mm with 6x of TCs on a 400mm/f4), and others are using the RF800 f/11 with TCs so the framing of a 1200mm f/11 is not that outlandish.


Thanks Alan! I've had the RF 100-500mm lens in the cart for months haha. To be honest I think the 100-500mm + R5 will undoubtedly be more effective for birds etc because of the eye-autofocus. Plus 1200mm is really tight - I spend a bit of time "swimming" around the scene with the viewfinder trying to find something I spotted with my eye.


----------



## fariff (Jun 8, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Thanx for sharing. Very funny, in particular the problem with those people who suspect that you are a sniper  . Using frequently a comparably "compact" EF 500mm lens for birding in a city I know what you mean from own experience. You can't hide such a big lens easily...


Haha thanks man - yes it's one of those things they don't warn you about in the manual! Polar opposite to HC-B.


----------



## tron (Jun 9, 2021)

I will save my pennies by not getting that monster


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 9, 2021)

For all those guys here who aren't interested in such compact lenses like the EF 1200mm f/5.6. This here is a REAL lens and a pinnacle of Germany's optics industries: the *Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4 *(!! no joke) made for Hasselblad 6x6 mount. This lens weighs 256 kg and was made for a sheik (according to rumors) - here is more to read about it:








The world's largest telephoto lens | #filmsnotdead


Film photography tips, tricks & news. Film and camera shop and market stall. Live from London. The Giant Hasselblad lens - Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4 lens No this is no joke, this is a real 'monster lens', that was specially made for wildlife



www.filmsnotdead.com


----------



## dwarven (Jun 10, 2021)

My grandpappy had one of those in the Civil War.







https://imgur.com/DFYY1Ma


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2021)

dwarven said:


> My grandpappy had one of those in the Civil War.



No, that's not the same thing, it's _clearly_ a Canon not a Zeiss.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 10, 2021)

«You call that a lens? THIS is a lens”


----------



## cayenne (Jun 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But with a 2xTC it does outperform a 600 with two 2x TC’s  .... maybe......


I think with that set up...the value will be in being able to actually *SEE* into the *future*.....



cayenne


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jun 10, 2021)

After reading about this development in PetaPixel, I can't wait for the 1200mm pancake lens.








Revolutionary 'Spaceplate' Could Eliminate Traditional Camera Lenses


The beginning of the end for traditional lenses?




petapixel.com


----------

