"Is this some kind of weapon sir?" "No no it's fine, it's just a canon!"

@kamikamieu

2 жыл бұрын

Damn punny

@karmatraining

Жыл бұрын

I think they mixed up the crates for rocket launchers and camera lenses and just decided to go with it

Whenever I see that Sigma 200-500mm lens, I just have to laugh at the size and design. It really looks like a rocket launcher 😂

@lnz971

2 жыл бұрын

How dare you joking about the Sigmonster

@luccaoklopcic5851

2 жыл бұрын

The color doesnt help it either

@akhlism.marifat9204

2 жыл бұрын

It does launch a rocket tho

@petersuvara

Жыл бұрын

@Oswaldo Zuniga I feel it was designed on that premise.

@thewishfulfilmmakerhsu

Жыл бұрын

Sigma Grindset

Among the company of these extreme and bizarre lenses the Nikon Noct 58/0.95 seem relatively usable; so that would be my choice.

@kadinaator

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. I'm a Canon user but I would also pick that lens - the images just look stunning.

@akhlism.marifat9204

2 жыл бұрын

I would pick that one too if I somehow can afford it. I mean, look at the price!

As a camera operator, I‘m really impressed by the larged boxed lenses, we use for tv productions. It’s no surprise that these lenses costs >100.000 € each, but the extreme zoom range + internal 2x extender is just incredible!

I got the 58MM version of the Petzval lens. It has a unique look and a great feature: you can put shaped fobs into the lens to make the bokeh look like different things. I've got heart shaped bokeh, flowers, unicorns, and so on. And people love the brass look.

5:45 that is truly outstanding, looks like a miniature diorama. my most extreme lens is the 7artisans 35mm f/0.95 (APS-C). it's more extreme than my other lens, the zoom kit that came with the camera.

I own the Canon MP-E 65mm f2.8 1-5x macro lens, which gets even closer than the Mitakon. Plus it goes continuously from 1:1 - 5:1.

@chriskola3822

2 жыл бұрын

By far the most extreme lens I've ever owned. Sort of a "one trick pony" but it does that trick at an extraordinarily high level.

@dgodfrey9189

2 жыл бұрын

Its a great lens for what it does. I have the FD 20mm f3.5 Macrophoto which is even more extreme. They're also surprisingly affordable.

Laowa Probe 24mm f14 Macro 2:1 is certainly a great candidate for this list.

Always loved your videos, keep it up!

Fantastic review as usual Christopher. Some amazing lenses there.

Which one would I own? None of them. That's why we have you! And thanks for that! All the best at this special time of the year.

Great vid as always! I love your attitude when making these ;)

I'd love to have the Nikon Z Noct, and the craziest lens I've ever tested is a tilt pinhole I made from a lens cap xD

@calinguga

2 жыл бұрын

the fact that it was a tilt lens, was it intentional? i'm just kidding.

Thanks for another awesome weird lens video Christopher. God Bless you and your family this Christmas :)

I've been using a Rubinar 500mm f5.6 mirror lens semi-regularly adapted to a Sony mirrorless body. Its a lot of fun to use, and its really upped my manual focus game. I regularly used it hand-held (which is only possible with in body image stabilising), and i can honestly say I've gotten to the point where more than 50% of the images i take with it are in focus. Resolution is ok (i shoot on a 42 mp A7R2), contrast is terrible, but easy to fix in post. Donut bokeh is a challange, but can look nice in certain cases.

I have an old russian 1000mm f10 mirror lens on which I managed to mount a Pentax K adapter and used it to shoot the total sun eclipse we had here in Europe years ago. Haven't used it after that, until I recently acquired a Pentax Q7. With it's tiny sensor and 4.7X crop-factor it was just begging to be used with the mirror-lens. And with that much crop-factor (effective a 4700mm lens!) it's quite hard to handle, even on a very heavy tripod. Cannot even fit the whole of the moon in one shot, every touch gets enlarged big time, as does the unrest in the air! Kinda fun to experiment with though :-)

some lenses i’ve legit never heard of until i see you upload about them lol still interesting to see

Great vid Chris! Thanks.

There’s little I love more than my guy saying howdy at the beginning of his videos. You make great content bro!

It's not really extreme, but I have a Hartblei 45mm f3.5 Super-Rotator tilt shift lens. It's a solid chunk of metal with some glass in it. If someone were to mug you for your camera, you could use this lens as a bludgeon and it would be fine.

Whenever I see a review from Chris I know it will be good. Phew saved myself a fortune!

I have an MRI 1000 I got in Ukraine... I adapted it to canon and put a 2x teleconverter on it to make it a 2200mm f21 lens. It was so much fun to try to get pictures with.

I want more vintage lenses in the Channel 🙏🏼

Just want to point out that F stops are not about brightness. That is what we have T stops for. Sometimes a wider aperture does not mean that the lens lets through more light. For example, the Fujifilm 50mm f1 lets in more light than the Laowa 33mm f0.95

What an interesting group of lenses. Happy Christmas.

LOVED THIS

Lenses like these aren't meant to be hyper sharp. Also in all lenses below f2.8, its widest is its softest in terms of sharpness. F1.8 lenses are much sharper at f2.8, 1.4 is sharper at f2, f1 is sharper at 1.4 etc

4:15 wow! It's uniquely trippy. Love this effect.

If I could have any of these it would be the Noct for sure. I have the Mitakon 35mm f 0.95 and absolutely love it but that Noct is just incredible

I like that MTO 1000A from the lenses you demoed. The most bizarre lens I've used so far is one of the lenses from your closing honorable mentions--the Zhong-Yi 20mm super macro lens. Limited uses but what it does is a great deal of fun and I present Macro photos from it every week on my FB page for friends to guess what I've shot. I enjoy trying to get ECU's of spider faces with it. It's got a very shallow depth of field and comes with no instructions--which is why I accidentally unscrewed its strange tiny lens barrel when I first tried it out. A nightmare. Several years later and I enjoy it very much and I only use it with ample lighting. My other favorite bizarre lens is the Rokinon 8mm fisheye f 2.0. Thanks for the video!

Got myself a Maksutov 1000 mirror lens that is quite similiar spec wise after watching the MTO 1000A review. I have to admit it wasn't my most usefull purchase but I got it brand new for a good price and don't want to miss it in my small lens collection. It's a beast of a 'lens' although fun to shoot photos with. Never got the moon so close and big on my DSLR's sensor.

That Petzval lens is calling me! I wonder what would happen on my M50 with that lens and my speedbooster

@craighall1419

2 жыл бұрын

On the APSC crop you would lose quite a bit of the effect, the speedbooster would bring you back to near full frame and the full effect though. You could check out the lensbaby twist - good petzval swirl at a 1/3 of the cost of the Lomo and its easier to use and very sharp in the middle. I use one on an M50 with a speedbooster and I love it - it takes some truly unique portraits.

@evertonporter7887

2 жыл бұрын

I do like that steampunk looking lens.

the most extreme lens I've ever used is a 18-55 nikon kit lens :')

Your tests of the mirror lenses and the petzval lenses makes me want to see you test a proper astrophotography telescope (astrograph), which use usually use either of those designs. It would be cool to see how a proper top tier astrograph like a Takahashi FSQ-106 would stack up to a camera lens, as the corner-to-corner performance of those scopes are remarkable. I wish I had one to loan :)

That Handevision 40mm f0.85 isn't the brightest aperture on sale, actually. Voigtlander makes a 29mm f/0.8 for micro 4/3, and it's actually sharp and free of noticeable chromatic aberration wide open.

Great video and super interesting lenses. My pick would be a toss up between the Noct and Canon 200-500 f2.8. I haven't really owned anything too extreme. One super cheap and interesting lens that I have come across was the Tokina AT-X 50-250 f4-5.6 with 1:1.4 macro. It's a great sharp vintage zoom with flawed aperture design.

Hope your voice is recovering. I'd want the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 just for the "over compensating" effect, like getting a Porsche 959.

The most bizarre lens i own is the Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestegor f/5.6 500mm Lens; m42 mount. It is a great lens, very sharp. I get super photos of the moon and so with it. Put it on my Sony A7 III or my Panasonic GH5 (=1000mm with crops factor of 2x)

For me the Nikon 58mm f0.95 would be a dream to try even though i'm not really interested in mirrorless cameras. My own extreme is the Nikon 800mm f5.6 AI-S with Tc-301 doubler. I have a 1.4x converter as well i plan to test in series with the doubler. Moon and jupiter shots are really wonderful.

Have you got to try out any of the vintage Meyer Optik Görlitz lenses by any chance? I do not own a Trioplan but instead a Primotar 135 3.5, and insofar as "technically horrible, artistically beautiful" rendition goes, this is my favourite of the lenses I've personally used so far. It's uncoated to my knowledge, and draws aberrations around just about anything that's got light reflecting off/coming around it but in just such a nice way. If you can get your hands on one, I would really recommend trying it out. I used mine on a Fuji X-T1 and Panasonic G80, so I can only imagine it'll get more apparent on a full frame sensor.

The Nikon 58mm .95 would definitely be my choice. I haven't tried any real strange lenses, but my Sigma 150-600 is probably the most extreme lens I have ever used.

@1fareast14

2 жыл бұрын

Cool to see you here, just binged you fork comparos a week ago

Also I recently went down the rabbit hole of getting bright optics for large format. OF-233 210/2.5, Aero Ektar 305/2.5, or triplet projection lenses like Leitz Epis 325/3.6, 400/4.0, Liesegang Meganast 600/3.8 etc. There are even bigger ones I couldn't find yet. The large ones (starting above 400 or so) are a massive pain to even adapt to a camera. But hey, I can eventually shoot head portraits with a lens that's larger than the head.

I honestly don’t think I’d get any of these. They are just too extreme. The kind of lenses I’d use twice for fun and then they’d sit on the shelf for eternity. Fun video, though!

The one lens here I might eventually get is your honorably mentioned Canon RF 800mm F/11. This video is the first I've seen to discuss that insane Sigma 200-500, a lens that's always intrigued me. Have you ever reviewed the Laowa 14mm F/14 Probe Macro lens for EF and E mount? It looks like a weevil's head; the weirdest-looking lens currently available IMO.

Would love to get my hands on the Nikon Noct lens! Beautiful and bokehlicous

Chris, I love it when you passive aggressively poopoo the image quality of lenses 🤣

I have some nice lenses like 85mm f1,2, zeiss 80mm f1,8, and some other old f1,4 lenses, but this 400mm f2 is something else. What a render of an image, mind blowing. You can guess which I would like to own.

Nice overview. The problem with calling a lens brightest based on the f/number is that the f/number does not dictate light transmitted. It only informs about the maximum entry pupil as fraction of the focal length. That "number" was considered important in Depth of Field calculations, but is not precise when we use a handheld lightmeter. This is why some lenses display the so-called T-stop next to the aperture number. This again is not without problems when you need precise exposure because a conventional prime lens's focal length becomes longer when you focus at closer by then "infinity" - A.K.A. focus breathing. A prime lens without focus breathing is in fact a zoom lens and it may derive a constant aperture (T-stop) from that "zooming". If you look at T-stop values of e.g. f/1.2L lenses from the C.anon brand then you'll see these may have a 1.5 T-stop. Then a f/1.4 lens from also might have a T-stop of 1.5 - meaning they are equally bright. This leaves the "Depth of Field" (DoF) problem unsolved. Does that f/1.2L lens have less DoF than the f/1.4? Well, DoF relates to focal length, distance and f/number AND another factor: the so-called "Circle of Confusion" (CoC). That CoC defines the diameter of a circle of the size in your image where you (subjective) cannot decide between sharp and not-sharp any more. So that CoC depends on a lens's sharpness (detail resolution) and the camera body's detail resolution (determined by MP number of photosites, presence or absence of an AA filter and your raw processing software). In other words, one brand's f/1.4 may be equally bright as another's f/1.2 and the f/1.4 may have less DoF because is has a smaller CoC (meaning it is sharper). But the f/1.2 may be buttery soft and you may prefer that. To the paying bride you shot with these lenses that is all meaningless when she verifies that she looks like a supermodel in your photographs.

If someone was going to offer me one of these for free, it'd be the 300-800 f5.6. That's an amazing lens for birds and wildlife. The most "extreme" lens I've actually used is the Pentax 67 400mm f4. The pro ruggedness combined with the huge image circle to cover 6"x7" make it an enormous and heavy lens to use - despite having a full frame equivalent of only about 270mm (although I have a 1.4x converter as well - and the combination stays razor sharp).

On DPReview TV, the 'Noct' is a unit of weight measurement.

great video as usual & as always, Voigtlander Super Nokton 29mm f/0.8 (for Micro-4/3rds Olympus) ...... is the Brightest Lens

Very Cool! I would definitely love to use the soft "terrible image" Canon 50mm f1.0 L USM (for certain scenes), Lomography Petzval 85mm f2.2 I've never used any extreme lenses, but would love to use an old anamorphic and a Hasselbald Ultrafast f/0.7 for low light closeup scenes or mid shots I would love to use them for film though, but that would be my first time, so Id practice on digital first

Time for the Aero Ektar on a 4x5" Graflex :D

The Sigma 300-800mm is my choice. I could have bought it second hand but ... went to the supermarket walked around with two bags of potatoes, 10 kg, because that was the weight of the lense, tripod and my camera I dropped the thought. I now own the Sigma 500mm f4 after a second mortgage. Keep up informing and entertaining us Chris!

I found the MTO 1100 f10.5 locally in Canada for $50 CAD or about 30 Pounds. It was in great condition and a dream to find. Haven't used it much but still just to say I have one is crazy in itself.

As a matter of fact I do own an MTO 1000mm lens as well as a smaller version ZM-5SA (500mm) and I absolutely love them. Pity you haven't mention its reflex-style donut bokeh and chromatic abberation performance - only the spherical one.

that bigma is just a rocket launcher at this point

Hey Chris, you should add the 2000mm reflex Nikkor lens to your collection😀

The most bizzare lens I have is a Melles griot 59LGL428. It technically has an infinite focal length as it's telecentric. 0 degree FOV, but it sees everything directly in front of the front element. It renders images orthographically instead of with perspective. It's normally used for machine vision cases, but I love the effect it gives in small subject photography that you just can't replicate otherwise.

I have a 500mm f/6.3 catadioptric lens and it is tons of fun. A bit tricky with the 2x added, but still. From the list I would love to have the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 from the Honourable Mention list.

At some point I genuinly thought "Noct" was some made-up unit of weight. Turns out I wasn't completely wrong.

I own a LZOS MTO 11CA which is the slightly lighter and at 1000mm slightly shorter focal length brother of your LZOS MTO-1000A. I love to use it for Lunar and Solar shots mostly, where it's performance is even slightly better than even most Schmidt Cassegrain Telescopes in similar focal length ranges.

I for myself have a tokina 400mm f/8 mirror lens and did some bird photography with it, got some great results although its a pain to use with the manual focus.

I thought you'd give a mention to the Canon 35mm Power Zoom lens, that thing was terrible 😂 I only liked it for the bizarre design. I have always wanted to try an extreme or bizarre lens just for an artistic look but so far the most unusual thing I have done was adapted an old Sigma 105mm EX DG macro onto my Panasonic GH4 for a 210mm equivilant telephoto. Despite my copy having a bad AF motor I actually liked the results I got when I did get something in focus. At least it made me good at manual focusing. I have always wanted to try and adapt extreme focal length mirror lenses for extreme focal lengths on my MFT cameras but given their dark fixed apatures which usually start at f/8, that is a bit dark on MFT to start with and is also about when diffraction starts to kick in on MFT. Combined with that and their soft image quality and ugly doughnut shaped bokeh balls, I have steered away so far. I like the Sigma 200-500 and even if I could afford it (which they are way better things to do with that kind of money), I have slight back problems and trying to lug that around really wouldn't do my back any favours.

I own the MTO-11CA 1000mm. Beast with a nice bokeh, I had some fun with it.

I have a fairly extreme Jupiter 50mm 3.5 lens that I hacked onto an eos mount and it is extreme in the fact that it is fairly useless. It is quite small though, and it actually works with focus confirm so it actually is not entirely useless and I use it on one of my analog EOS cameras (which I do recommend because they're not hard to find and fairly cheap). I use it on my 70d for filming, EOS 1-n and my 300 for analog stuff.

Thanks!

@christopherfrost

Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Cool, my best crazy lens is the Vivitar 100-500mm f5.6-8,.I managed to buy it from a UK police force. Its amazing teamed up with my Sony NEX-7, great for wild life and moon shots, I've even taken some random shots for TV antennas on buildings that came out well. oh and impossible to hand hold.

Not sure about ownership but trying out these weird lenses would be very interesting. As for the ones that I have tried, the weirdest would be a 50/0.75 X-Ray lens mounted onto a modified NEX-5. The flange distance of the lens is so short that the NEX-5 body has to be modified to get any non-macro shots.

Nothing I own is particularly extreme, but I feel very fortunate for owning some of my dream lenses - Canon EF 400mm f2.8 IS II, RF 85mm f1.2, RF 50mm f1.2, EF 135mm f2, Tamron 35mm f1.4. Just waiting on a stellar 24mm optic coming out for RF and then a few months after, for it to appear on the second hand market! 😅🤞

I'd love to have that 200-500mm Sigma lens. Not only do you get the unique f/2.8 at 500mm, in case of war it also doubles as a bomb shelter. The 300-800 Sigmonster looks nifty as well

A few years back, the wife and I spent a couple days at a 'Bear Viewing Lodge' on the coast of Alaska -- a 'bucket list' experience, I might add. I was shooting with the excellent little Olympus E-M5 and my Oly 75-300mm zoom -- got some great mamma bear and baby bear close ups. There was a group of about 6 Norwegian photographers staying at the lodge, and they must have been carrying $100,000 worth of Nikon D4's and Canon 1DX's, etc. with gigantic glass and tripods -- it made me tired watching them cart that stuff around. One of the Nikon D4 guys had his camera attached to a 'Sigmonster', and some sort of massive tripod. I never got to see any of their images, but I suspect they were pretty impressive. That said, every time we loaded up to go out and photograph the bears, I hugged my little light weight Olympus set up.

Every time I see that Sigma 200-500mm I have to think of that dude using it without a tripod and have to laugh ^^

my weiredest ones: -(RADIOACTIVE) Asahi Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:1.4/50 (there is actually something to it) -(Mirrorlense Opteka) 500mm f6.3 with 2x teleconverter (easier to carry than other compareable focal lenght lenses but sadly a verry soft immage) -(Monster) RMC Tokina 400mm 1:5.6 with a 2x teleconverter (heavy and long, but makes good images (pricewise)

gotta get that MTO... the most extreme lens I've used is a Meade 8" telescope 2000mm FL at f/10

"The 7 most extreme and bizarre lenses" I didn't know I wanted... thanks... :P

@SyntheticFuture

2 жыл бұрын

That noct 0.95 is absolutely insane. There's no way a 0.95 should be that sharp wide open. That's some top notch engineering.

I have that MTO lens and the two new Lomography Petzvals; the 55mm Mk.II and the 80.5mm (with 'bokeh control' ring). I'm happy to report that the image quality of the Petzvals has improved significantly, but only in the middle of course.

@Martin_Siegel

2 жыл бұрын

But honestly, that's what you buy them for, isn't it? Not for corner sharpness.

@RubenvanKuik

2 жыл бұрын

@@Martin_Siegel Of course, but it's nice to have that extra sharpness and contrast in the middle :)

@Martin_Siegel

2 жыл бұрын

@@RubenvanKuik Just what a portrait lens should be - sharp in the center and some nice fall off to the corners.

I’m surprised the Zenit photosniper didn’t get a mention.

300-800mm? Wow. I'll have to watch that video. Thanks.

i have the RF 800mm ,it's the cheapest serious lens for birds it is incredible ,i test all my lenses on a boudhist temple's sculptured and painted wall ,and that was the first day that i didn't judged the lens ,but instead i judged the painting mistakes

The mitacon looks like fun.

That Noct is really nice, it’s a toss up for me between the technical quality of that and the swirly bokeh of the Petzval.

Not quite good, but really fun was the following combination: Using a Tokina RMC 400 f/5.6 FD lens on an FD 2x extender and an adapter to the lens mount of choice, and suddenly we have... a really, really compact 800 f/11 lens you can even stop down! Yeah, it's manual all the way, but hey, it's light (did I mention that before?) and cost a mere 100€ or so. So, one might argue that the concept of the Canon RF 800 f/11 might have been there all along on 1980 technology or so. ;)

Have you ever tried a Novoflex "Schnellschuss" (quick shot) lens? It comes in 400 and 600 mm and features a pretty unique manual focusing system. However, if you think the big Sigma looks like a gun, you definitely don't want to be seen with one of the Novoflexes around an airport.

That 400 f2 is the best one IMO. The Sigma is great too, but that 400 f2...wonder how on Earth did he get a copy of that?

Had a friend who got the Canon 50mm f/1. Total disaster. It was the film days so taking pictures wide open and ending up with bad results was devastating. Of course at the time shooting with iso400 film was your only - equally bad - alternative. He ended up buying a 50mm f/1.4. I did see a guy in Hongkong long ago who claimed he could change the electronics so it would focus somewhat better. All in all in took Canon until the RF 50mm F/1.2 to get it right.

The Noct is definitely the dream

Now try getting your hands on the Nikon 1200-1700mm f5.6-8 and the Nikon 6mm f2.8 fisheye.

@marcb.2648

2 жыл бұрын

or the Zeiss 1700 f4....

I currently own the Cyclop 85mm f 1.5, also know as helios 40-2 85mm f 1.5, a crazy swirly bokeh lens. The only difference is that the cyclop comes without aperture, so it's alway f 1.5. I've never used it too much because the effect is not that strong on aps-c, but perhaps i will give them another chance or sell/trade. I would like to try the 0.95 noct, it would be cool to do something weird with a crazy amount of darkness (milky way on a video?)

perhaps a reflex/mirror lens, such as the old AF 500mm f8 Minolta (adaptable to Sony) would be a nice addition for next year :P

I had the honor of having been lent the EF 50mm f/1 some 15 years ago and though I agree the images are somewhat soft, even on 6MP sensors, I must insist that sharpness is not everything. The lens has character. Can't say what it is, but it conveys the impression of the visual representation of reality beautifully. So this would be my choice. I do own the 85mm f/1.2, and though it is very, very similar, it's narrower angle of view makes it much more suitable for portraits and quite unsuitable for general use.

Nikon made a 400mm f/2 in a small number, one shows up on ebay with a cine mount from time to time (with the Nikon mount parts to convert back to 35mm mount)

Weirdest lens type I have here are the Makowsky Katoptaron LDM-1 and LDM-1/S. It's an 800mm f11 katoptric (mirror-only) off-axis optical system with aperture that covers 35mm. It has nominally 2.9x macro capability at 70 cm distance with the additional mirror-only folding bellow attachments, going fully from UV to IR. Image quality near perfect from edge to edge when well calibrated. Alternatively it shipped with an apochromatic 8x or 3x closeup lens. It has T-mount and Hertel&Reuss microscope head interfaces. Basically the only serially produced mirror optic that doesn't have donut bokeh, and the only instance of that optic that is well built (there are some cheap 500mm versions on the market as well, but those are bad). My LDM-1/S is serial no 3 of that batch though, so i don't think they made too many of them.

My main birding lens is the Sigma 50-500, but at 1:4.5-6.3 it isn't exotic at all, just useful :-) For compactness and "improving my skills by working harder" I have an Opteka 500mm (1:6.3) Catadioptric; it's also outright *cheap*. Of the ones in this video, the petzvals *look* the coolest, but the Mitakon 20mm looks like it would be best for exploring a new domain of photography...

I've tried to use a flash light lens, and it worked!

I own the 800f11 and I love it. Not sure I consider it extreme after using it for nearly a year.

If that Petzfal lens was not as bad in image quality as it is than I would probably want to own that one. The same goes for the Canon 50mm F1 lens. And the Sigma 200mm-500mm I would like to own that one if it was a lot smaller and lighter. Probably if they would make a new version they could make it lighter. Probably with the same specs but more modern version. Or maybe just a little smaller zoom range or slightly smaller aperture would be enough to make it much smaller and lighter. that would be interesting I guess

you did not mention my lovely xf200 :)

To answer your closing question, for me it was the Canon R (note: that's R, not RF) 2000mm f/11. It's a giant, 10kg grey tube from the early 60s that Canon made for the BBC and a couple of US broadcasters. They also made a 5400mm f/14, but I've never gotten close to one of those and from what I hear there are no longer any fully working units. People today freaking out about the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11s either don't know or have forgotten that Canon (and Nikon to a lesser extent) has been doing this kind of thing for decades. I've also used the full range of Canon R 'bellows' supertelephoto lenses, including the 1000mm f/11 and 800mm f/8, as well as the 1970s FL 1200mm f/11 and 800mm f/8. They all make the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 look quite quaint by comparison. Really the RF lenses are just Canon revisiting their origins.

The MTO 1000A seems like something I'd get a great kick out of, though the aperture seems annoying.