Talk:Canon EF 1200mm lens

Availability

The Canon Australia[1] and Great Britain[2] web-pages still list this lens, and the Canon USA site[3] still currently says this lens is available by special order, as of 6/17/06. Are they definitely discontinued? Is there any source for that? If they're nearly $90,000 each and only 10 have been made, and they're all made by special order, perhaps they just haven't had an order since 2005, but haven't specifically discontinued them either? Anyone else have any info on this? I'd just change it, but I don't know the basis for the original claim. Could be a Canon employee who knows more about this than I do, but something seems weird if it's discontinued, yet still on their websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingling (talk • contribs)

An IP added that was it discontinued in 2006, later another IP changed that to 2005 and provided this link in the edit summary. Qutezuce 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an odd case. I had extensive discussions with a sales rep at one of the largest Canon suppliers in Australia. Only anecdotal, I guess - however: "The lens was always considered to not be a mass market product, for obvious reasons. It was added into the product line for the 'wow' factor. If you can go to CPS, and say you want this lens, and /prepay/ the price, they (Canon, not CPS) will handbuild you one, new." The lenses are apparently handmilled. I'd also question the number of lenses claimed to be in existence. In reference to some smartass who claimed to own one, said Canon rep remarked that "I know of all the 1200 lenses in Australia, and who has them" and implied that there were perhaps a small number (under 6). That being said, an anecdote does not a cite make, so I will edit. Achromatic 13:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Canon Europe page now lists it as an "Archived Product",[4] along with several other lenses that have either been superseded (e.g. the first 85mm f/1L), or simply dropped (e.g. the 50mm f/1L). If the Wayback Machine is to be trusted, the text was added some time between August 2004 and February 2006. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number made

The comment that only ten were made is based on old information. I was talking to a guy from Canon on Saturday (PMA Australia), and he indicated that 9 made it into Australia. 9 in Australia would strongly suggest that more were made - after all, Australia is a relatively small market - so I'm inclined to call bull on that statement ... 130.194.11.64 03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B&H Photo Video

Ever since B&H Photo Video has had a copy of this lens, people have been continuously placing this fact on this page. This is against Wikipedia content guidelines. Most people that add this fact, are not registered users(IP only), so I can understand that they don't know this. But just to make things clear, for those that might not know, this is considered spam. Wikipedia is not an internet forum, it is not an advertising agency. The fact that B&H currently sells this lens, does nothing to help discribe this lens. Think of it this way, B&H sells lots of lenses, should we add this fact to every lens page? Obviously no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebrot (talk • contribs) 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In fact, you're dead wrong, and I find it hard to take you seriously, given that you railed against unregistered users and then forgot to sign your own message. The following short paragraph would be perfectly acceptable, e.g:

"The lens was produced in limited quantities, and although Canon have not released sales figures, unofficial sources suggest that only a few hundred were sold.(reference) The lens originally retailed for (price).(reference) In 2008, photographic retailer B&H Photo Video listed a used example for $99,000.(reference, e.g. Gizmodo)."

You can have that sentence for free. I would add it to the article myself, but I suspect you would take it out. And you'd be wrong. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who is right or who is wrong, and in most cases we are wrong. We are all human. Point is that when that lens was put up for sale at B&H, there were a lot of non-registered users adding that fact to the article (flavor of the month news). But in a simple, one sentence, at the bottom fashion (looked like trivia to me). They did not integrate the fact into the article. Which is why I made the preceding statement. "how does this fact help describe the lens?". My statement was meant to push people to make a serious effort. So one day somebody could say: "HA, see I can make this fit!!". I have the opinion that if somebody wants to help with this wiki, they should take it seriously. Not just a writing a brash 2 minute edit. Too many articles read like crap, and are contradictory. Some editors don't take the time, don't know the manual of style, and are just plain lazy. I guess my way of trying to motivate people is sometimes to talk like an ass hole (people often work best when they want to prove a point!). Your suggested addition holds weight. It describes that the lens is so rare, that when one was made available for sale at B&H, it was at a considerable price. It was noteworthy. Hay guess what, you just found a way that fact helps describe the lens! Works for you, me, everyone. Add it, or are you too lazy? ;) Nebrot (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canon EF 1200mm lens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]