Do you think it's too heavy?

Started Oct 29, 2007 | Discussions
JDuBS2 Contributing Member • Posts: 582
Do you think it's too heavy?

I hear this comment quite often around here. "Everyone says it's too heavy" or "Do you think it will be too heavy as a walkaround?".

I am not talking about super teles like the 400 2.8 etc etc...I am talking about lenses like the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-400, 300f4lis and their ilk. You know...those lenses that are made of non plastic?

Don't knock it til you try it.

After going through my fair share of lenses I have come to the realization that I am just not comfortable with a lens that isn't built solidly. It doesn't have to be "heavy" per se...just built really well. Once you use a few lenses that have some substance to them you will never go back. If you have the budget that is...

For some reason I like a lens with some substance because it makes me feel like I have a more stable platform. It SEEMS like I have less camera shake with a heavier lens also. My technique feels smoother as well.

I actually sent back a 70-200 F4LIS after using it for a day because it felt too light. I am soo used to the 2.8 version that I just couldn't see myself using the lightweight f4.

If you want to hold your DSLR body and lens combo in one hand and talk on the phone with the other hand then this post is probably not for you

I even like my 50 1.4 and 100f2 because they are solidly built. They don't need to be "heavy"...just solid.

Don't worry about the weight...try it for a few days first. You may like it.

Not sure of this is making sense...I saw a post today about another guy crying about the weight of a 24-70 2.8 lens he had never even held. So I had to speak up!

And I had a few minutes to kill

Robphoto Regular Member • Posts: 474
I love me heavy 28-300L

for the same reason. The weight makes it more comfortable. and i normally work for 15 hour jobs.

Pastynator Contributing Member • Posts: 925
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

Longs you can cope with the weight, you do actually get less camera shake from a heavier lens because it takes more force to move a heavier object.

That equals a smoother movement of the object usually and less 'vibration' type incidents.

MICHAEL_61 Senior Member • Posts: 2,156
Re: I love me heavy 28-300L
Cesare Ferrari Regular Member • Posts: 431
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

I swapped out my 10D for a 1D Mark II earlier this year, and I feel i'm getting less shake in my images. Im getting better results below 1/f. Saying that i've also changed crop factor which I guess helps.

BTW, a 1D with a 50/1.8 makes a lovely combination because of how cheap the lens is - I love the feel of such a solid camera with such a cheap lens on the end. Here is a 1D + 50/1.8 shot from the weekend:

Cesare

 Cesare Ferrari's gear list:Cesare Ferrari's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II +1 more
Gautam Majumdar Forum Pro • Posts: 13,264
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

Heavy or not depends not only on the weight of the gear but also on one's fitness. 30 years ago I used to carry 10-18 kg of gear with me. On occasions airlines refused to allow it in the cabin as hand luggage. Now in the 7th decade of life anything more than 5 kg is heavy for me. I found that not just the weight of the lens & the camera but also the distribution of the weight is very important for carrying it over a long time. I often carry 30D+100-400 over distances and found that an extra sling tied to the lens barrel & put over my neck makes it much easier to carry.
--
Gautam

bronxbombers Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

JDuBS2 wrote:

I hear this comment quite often around here. "Everyone says it's too
heavy" or "Do you think it will be too heavy as a walkaround?".

I am not talking about super teles like the 400 2.8 etc etc...I am
talking about lenses like the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-400,
300f4lis and their ilk. You know...those lenses that are made of non
plastic?

Don't knock it til you try it.

After going through my fair share of lenses I have come to the
realization that I am just not comfortable with a lens that isn't
built solidly. It doesn't have to be "heavy" per se...just built
really well. Once you use a few lenses that have some substance to
them you will never go back. If you have the budget that is...

For some reason I like a lens with some substance because it makes me
feel like I have a more stable platform. It SEEMS like I have less
camera shake with a heavier lens also. My technique feels smoother as
well.

i actually find the lighter ones a little easier to wield. 300 f/4 easier to handhold psorts than 300 2.8, easier to move and stop on a dime with less mass and any mass preventing jitter is offset by extra weight causing more jitter in muscles.

i don't have a problem with 300 f/4, 70-200, etc. but i do prefer lighter and smaller if there is no compromise (usually there is though).

Port Royal Dad
Port Royal Dad Senior Member • Posts: 2,719
I Prefer Heavy Too

I feel like I am more in control.. and my grip is more comfotable...very subjective I realize. Nevertheless, my 70-200L f/2.8 IS lives almost full time on my 30D. And a funny thing happened yesterday, a friend of mine asked me to hold his 300D which had the kit lens...all I can say is, once you go heavy, you never go back.

Mike
--
B.R.A.S.S. (Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze)

Michael Strachan Regular Member • Posts: 290
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

As a pro photographer in the 80s I had a Canon F1 AE Fn with full motor drive and a 35-105 zoom lens - it weighed a ton. Once, when trying to catch my young daughter, who'd tripped getting out of a car, the camera punched a hole in the metal door skin of the car, as i jumped forward to catch her!

In the late 80's I gave up photography as a profession and did something else. Having returned to photography as a hobby, I was appaled at the quality of the optics Canon, and others (Nipon, etc.) make today, as their entry level kit. The weight is non-existant, with all these plastic bodies, plastic lenses, etc... but then again, less weight ca sometimes be better, or so i thought... then i bought my first L (17-40) on a 400d body....Bliss! a real lens... so you can imagine my joy at my next L 70-200 F2.8 IS L - tis a real lens, which is so heavy it makes you take your photography seriously... and, with a 400d on it - its ideal and has almost become my carry round lens...

and the weight makes you steady yourself and concentrate... lightweight cameras and lenses help to breed an attitude of point and snap...

If only people who haven't got the 70-200 f2.8, or who have Prime Ls, or those who bought the f4 version wouldn't be quite so nasty about it... i see an unbelieveable amount of hatred expressed against this lens and i see mine a fine example... so what if it ain't as sharp as a f4, or the equivalent prime... optically it does the job i want, i looks the dog's dangly bits and it's weight is a pure joy...

it has "heft"

pretzelb Regular Member • Posts: 483
24-70 was too much for me

After my last trip I was annoyed at having to change lenses so often so I thought I would convert back to zoom lenses again. I went to rent a EF 24-70 2.8 so I test it and I never even bothered after holding it in my hand. It was the easiest camera decsion I've ever made. After working with primes I was utterly shocked at how heavy that lens was.

I suppose I could get used to it, and I'm plenty fit to handle the weight, but this is just a hobby for me and if my camera is so heavy it annoys me then my hobby starts to get in the way of my fun. I can't enjoy a party or hike or a walk with the dog if I'm annoyed by the weight of my camera.

Then again maybe I'm just as dedicated as most others. I have even flirted with the idea of going P&S.
--

Misc equip : Canon 610, Canon 400D, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 24mm f/2.8

GearCollector Contributing Member • Posts: 976
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

It's all relative. I often use my 1 series with my Bigma and I don't find it 'too heavy'. It's one of those questions that can't be answered for somebody else.

 GearCollector's gear list:GearCollector's gear list
Canon PowerShot Pro1 Canon PowerShot Pro70 Canon PowerShot Pro90 IS Canon PowerShot SX1 IS Canon PowerShot SX30 IS +28 more
Vladyslav Kosulin Senior Member • Posts: 2,099
You'll get used to it

I also came though this fear before, and can tell you that it is not heavy at all.

I wore the whole setup with me for 12-14 hours a day without any problems. Here it is:

  • Specialist 85AW with 2 additional pouches at waistbelt (one - for camcorder HV10, and another - for my son's P&S).

  • either 5D or 350D, with quick release plate attached;

  • either 10-22 or 16-35 (old one) with hood;

  • 24-70 f/2.8 L USM with hood attached;

  • 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM with quick release plate and with hood reversed;

  • 580EX;

  • Omni-Bounce flash diffuser;

  • Giottos Rocket blower (small);

  • CF and SD cards;

  • 4 spare AA batteries;

  • 2 additional HDV cassettes for camcorder;

  • bottle of Eclipse;

  • 2 microfiber clothes;

  • lens brush;

  • 2 Zip-lock bags;

  • sunglasses, map, bottle of water, etc.

In a separate custom pouch I had Gitzo GM2560T with G1278M, either behind my back or attached to the waistbelt.

I am 172sm tall, and weight approx 82 kg. If you consider that sometimes I have to bring one of my sons either on top of the bag (3 yrs old only), or onto my shoulders (3 or 5 yrs old), you got the picture
Here are examples:
http://public.fotki.com/kosulin/lowepro-specialist-85aw/img0222.html
http://public.fotki.com/kosulin/lowepro-specialist-85aw/img0224.html
--
Vlad

 Vladyslav Kosulin's gear list:Vladyslav Kosulin's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +1 more
mmullen Veteran Member • Posts: 4,285
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

I don't mind the weight of most lenses mounted on the body, it's the overall weight of all the gear combined that adds up. I shoot mostly outside and it often involves hiking, sometimes at altitude, sometimes over marshy ground, etc. I don't want to carry a bunch of heavy low-light lenses when they will be stopped down for better depth of field most of the time anyway. If every item in my kit weighs 30% less, then I can save a considerable amount overall and I will not sink as deep in the marshy or sandy ground and I can navigate trickier routes off trail than if I'm loaded down with too much gear. Another bonus is that the lenses without large maximum apertures often have just as good or better image quality.

Of course if you need the big aperature, you need it. But with the excellent high ISO performance of modern cameras I find them less and less necessary. A couple of fast primes for indoor events will go a long ways and can be left at home when not needed.
--
Mike Mullen

 mmullen's gear list:mmullen's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM +6 more
Ominous Veteran Member • Posts: 4,304
Re: 24-70 was too much for me

pretzelb wrote:

After my last trip I was annoyed at having to change lenses so often
so I thought I would convert back to zoom lenses again. I went to
rent a EF 24-70 2.8 so I test it and I never even bothered after
holding it in my hand. It was the easiest camera decsion I've ever
made. After working with primes I was utterly shocked at how heavy
that lens was.

The 85 F1.2 is not what I would call light, and it is a prime.

-- hide signature --
Ter0925 Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

Reading your whole post is a bit confusing.

JDuBS2 wrote:
Doesn't have to be heavy but built really well.

After going through my fair share of lenses I have come to the
realization that I am just not comfortable with a lens that isn't
built solidly. It doesn't have to be "heavy" per se...just built
really well.

You sent the 70-200 F4 IS back because it was too light? So is the 70-200 F4 IS solidly built?

I actually sent back a 70-200 F4LIS after using it for a day because
it felt too light. I am soo used to the 2.8 version that I just
couldn't see myself using the lightweight f4.

These two primes are light and it goes with your original argument about not having to be heavy but solidly built. However, it doesn't go with your 70-200.

I even like my 50 1.4 and 100f2 because they are solidly built. They
don't need to be "heavy"...just solid.

Don't worry about the weight...try it for a few days first. You may
like it.

Vladyslav Kosulin Senior Member • Posts: 2,099
Re: Do you think it's too heavy?

mmullen wrote:

Of course if you need the big aperature, you need it. But with the
excellent high ISO performance of modern cameras I find them less and
less necessary. A couple of fast primes for indoor events will go a
long ways and can be left at home when not needed.

Faster lens means faster and more precise AF, and manual focusing is also much easier. Especially, when light is far from perfect.

If I could, I'd have a set of primes (14, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, 400mm, 180 macro), and 3 f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 700-200) to choose from. But I can't, and find zooms serving me better at the moment.
I tried some 4.0 zooms (24-105 and 70-200 IS), and do not see it handy for me.
--
Vlad

 Vladyslav Kosulin's gear list:Vladyslav Kosulin's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +1 more
vinkeatkel Contributing Member • Posts: 596
24-70/2.8 is too heavy.

and too clunky. takes all the fun out of it for me. and with lens barrel extended at 70mm...that's hardly a solid feel to me, unlike the 17-35 and 17-40, both of which do feel solid at any focal length. and that's if you require zooms. i don't need zooms myself. i find that the fast, mid-priced primes work perfectly for me. and they feel quite solid, too.

JDuBS2 wrote:

I hear this comment quite often around here. "Everyone says it's too
heavy" or "Do you think it will be too heavy as a walkaround?".

I am not talking about super teles like the 400 2.8 etc etc...I am
talking about lenses like the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 100-400,
300f4lis and their ilk. You know...those lenses that are made of non
plastic?

Don't knock it til you try it.

After going through my fair share of lenses I have come to the
realization that I am just not comfortable with a lens that isn't
built solidly. It doesn't have to be "heavy" per se...just built
really well. Once you use a few lenses that have some substance to
them you will never go back. If you have the budget that is...

For some reason I like a lens with some substance because it makes me
feel like I have a more stable platform. It SEEMS like I have less
camera shake with a heavier lens also. My technique feels smoother as
well.

I actually sent back a 70-200 F4LIS after using it for a day because
it felt too light. I am soo used to the 2.8 version that I just
couldn't see myself using the lightweight f4.

If you want to hold your DSLR body and lens combo in one hand and
talk on the phone with the other hand then this post is probably not
for you

I even like my 50 1.4 and 100f2 because they are solidly built. They
don't need to be "heavy"...just solid.

Don't worry about the weight...try it for a few days first. You may
like it.

Not sure of this is making sense...I saw a post today about another
guy crying about the weight of a 24-70 2.8 lens he had never even
held. So I had to speak up!

And I had a few minutes to kill

killersnowman
killersnowman Regular Member • Posts: 450
Re: 24-70 was too much for me

they would be lighter than "equivalent" zoom lenses. what would weigh less? a 85mm f/1.2 or a 70-100 f/1.2 or any other zoom in the f/1.2 range? no body knows cause they dont make those types of zoom lenses, but i think it is an obvious answer... the prime will be lighter.

Ominous wrote:

The 85 F1.2 is not what I would call light, and it is a prime.

-- hide signature --
 killersnowman's gear list:killersnowman's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 20D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM
One DaveT Contributing Member • Posts: 767
85/1.2 is even heavier

85/1.2 tops the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4 at 2.3 lbs. A little surprising the first day, but quickly forgotten.

I find size much more of an obstacle than weight. I cary a tiny 24/2.8 for general shooting when size is a concern. ... at least that my solution until I pick up a G9.

netgarden Forum Pro • Posts: 10,770
the nice thing about too light 70-200f4IS

the 70-200f4IS, is so easy to move around for fast shooting compared to the 2.8. Its the best longer walkaround around!
--

Linda's space~ http://soulswithin.u.yuku.com/
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown

 netgarden's gear list:netgarden's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II +1 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads