Would you spend $12K on a lens?

If I had the money, I would spend $100.000 on a lens. My wish list is over $100k on B&H for just the lens list.

MikeMSD wrote in post #14892623
Would you spend $12-$14K for a lens, if you weren't making money on photography?

Why not? Just make sure you store it somewhere safe. My recommendation is to get a climate-controlled Hummer and keep it parked in your air conditioned garage.

tkbslc wrote in post #14926233
You can get the original 600mm F4 for under $4k used. It doesn't have Image Stabilization, but it is not like you can really handhold these lenses anyway.

Even on a tripod IS makes a big difference when focusing or pressing the shutter button. Since the lens is so long every little heartbeat can traslate through the camera and lens. I've got one of those 650-1300mm lenses (just for fun) and I either use two tripods or a Manfrotto Magic Arm attached to a tripod to get both the lens and camera stabile. And I still get a lot of shake when I'm trying to focus. If you can afford it, IS is absolutely worth the extra money.

^^doesn't that 650-1300mm lens bend when it's mounted onto a camera? i thought i saw a pic of that...i'd say the build quality of the two would be drastically different...

At 1300mm is does, but that doesn't change the effect that camera/lens shake has on it. Focusing isn't magically easier when the lens is strudy. How about a macro lens getting close to the subject? IS makes a difference there too. Even on a tripod when you touch the camera, everything shakes. I'm just saying, IS is extremely nice to have on longer lenses handheld or not, and if you can afford it get it.