24-70 2.8 L Too Heavy

[ghocking]

Having only had this lens for 2 days and only tried it out once, it seemed to me to be a bit heavy and would be better with IS. I would like to hear other users views on this.

[tommykjensen]

Yeah its a bit on the heacy side. But adding IS would only make it even heavier.

[kraterz]

Yeah, it's heavy. I felt my 28-70L was heavy too, so I sold it. It is a superb lens, but the weight made me leave it at home more often than not, and carry a couple of small primes.

[chris.bailey]

Cant see IS would add much at this range. Yes it is heavy but to me it feels nicely balanced and is one of my favourites. You do get used to the weight and its better with a battery grip on a 10D.

[aam1234]

I actually like its weight, other lenses seem too light :D

[John57]

I don't mind the weight either ..... given the superb image quality available - but then again, I am using it on a 1 series camera so it balances out well!

If I was trying to use it on a 350d I may well think it was too heavy.....

[grego]

Get used to it, all the higher quality lens tend to be heavier. :)

And maybe it'll encourage you to work out more. So it can't be all that bad.

[picture-this]

This is one of my lighter lenses, I woudn't want to use it without a grip though.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I don't know about you guys, but I honestly love heavy lenses. Love the feel of them. I'd kill to have a couple 2+ pound lenses in my bag and one on my camera at all times. Plus hey, what doesn't kill ya, makes ya stronger. In this case, litterally. ;)

[mgchan]

I'd purchased it about a month ago. While on vacation a few weeks ago, I'd lugged this lens around for four days in Venice and three days in London! At first it's a bit heavy, but you'll get used to it. Now it's always on my 20D.

[DavidEB]

Lower weight is an advantage of the Tamron 28-75. Shorter lens barrel, smaller filters, easier to walk around with.

[V6GTO]

Guys,
My 28-135 IS is going to the repair shop for the second time tomorrow. I'm on the point of getting the 24-70 to replace it. It's quality I'm after (and I can carry my 100-400 L IS all day so not bothered about the weight) Could you post a couple of photos to show me how sharp this lens is?

Thanks, Martin.

[aam1234]

I don't know about you guys, but I honestly love heavy lenses. Love the feel of them.

Totally agree. Lighter lenses don't feel real. The weight of that lens screams "quality".

[jbradc]

If you want a fast, solid lens it is going to be heavy. Glass weighs more than plastic ;-)

[ed2day]

Yep, it's heavy. Doesn't seem so bad after toting the 100-400L though. I haven't tried it witout the battery grip but I have to think that makes a big difference. Without the grip I feel like I'm holding my 300D with my fingertips. With the grip it's securely in my palm. It's gotta be even worse on the Rebel XT.

[Adam Hicks]

If it's too heavy, just get the Tamron and enjoy pretty much the same image quality at about half the weight. Focus isn't quite as fast, or quiet, but image quality is superb and weight is much lighter (on your pocketbook too.)

Flame on!

Adam

[xstrio]

Lower weight is an advantage of the Tamron 28-75. Shorter lens barrel, smaller filters, easier to walk around with.

its also about half the price i belive and comparable image quality

[GTogs]

I really like my Tamron 28-75, good quality pics and a good feel on my DRebel.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Eh, I think that lens is ugly as hell, and also not as wide. :-( I'd certainly pay the extra for the L. :-)

[CoolToolGuy]

Having only had this lens for 2 days and only tried it out once, it seemed to me to be a bit heavy and would be better with IS. I would like to hear other users views on this.

I don't know which body you are using, but the next revelation may be that you realize you can't use the built-in flash. :confused:

I have it, and it stays on as my default lens in the winter, when I have more low-light subjects. But the EF-S 17-85 IS is a good alternative in daylight.

Have Fun,

[SkipD]

I don't know which body you are using, but the next revelation may be that you realize you can't use the built-in flash.I love the size and weight of the 24-70 f2.8 lens. It provides some mass so that the camera doesn't wave around like a featherweight probably would in my hands.

As far as the built-in flash is concerned, I don't even consider using it because it would never produce the kind of lighting that I would want in my photos. I don't care for the harsh shadow outline of my subjects, red-eye, etc. The 1-series cameras don't even have built-in flash units. I wonder why ;)

[Bob_A]

Great lens. It's a bit heavy if I use the neck strap that came with the camera as a neck strap ... however when I use it I wrap the neck strap around my wrist and carry the camera in my right hand. Seems fine to me when I carry it this way, even continuously for over an hour. The POTN strap is supposed to be much better :) , and if not, I'll eventually get a wrist strap.

This is one solid feeling lens which produces sharp images with great color and contrast ... can't say enough good things about it. I also have no concerns when using the built in flash ... because I don't use it.

Bob

[mbze430]

nope I love shooting with my 24-70. I have had days where I held it in my hand for over 5 hours.

[Persian-Rice]

Its heavy, but its not unbearable, at least I dont think so. Just thank god you havent tried a fast L Tele......... They are all VERY Heavy.

[blinking8s]

i hate the 24-70 L...could care less about the weight, ive never had good results from it, could be me, but i used three and just wasnt impressed...

[CoolToolGuy]

I love the size and weight of the 24-70 f2.8 lens. It provides some mass so that the camera doesn't wave around like a featherweight probably would in my hands.

As far as the built-in flash is concerned, I don't even consider using it because it would never produce the kind of lighting that I would want in my photos. I don't care for the harsh shadow outline of my subjects, red-eye, etc. The 1-series cameras don't even have built-in flash units. I wonder why ;)

Personally, I prefer ambient lighting, and flash is not a frequent choice for me. But as I noted, I continue to use the 24-70L, and it gives excellent results. But when considering it as a walkaround lens it falls a little short if the built-in flash is not usable. The EF-S 17-85 IS does not present that limitation, so it works for me. YMMV

Have Fun,

[ghocking]

Thanks for all the comments, the bodies I use are 20D and 350D without grips. At present I would rather spend my money on more L lenses rather than grips just to improve the balance. I find the IS on my 100-400 L so fantastic, that is why I would have liked it on the 24-70 L. Hope to get on on a walking trip this weekend to try it on Landscapes ( I do not like very wide angle lenses for landscapes, but there again have not tried my 10-22 for landscapes yet), and have set up my Lowpro AW75 with the chest hareness to save my neck.

Geoff Hocking
20D
350D
EF S 10-22
EF 28-135 IS
EF 75-300 IS
EF 24-70 L
EF 100-400 L IS

[Persian-Rice]

As much as I do "beat on" the 28-75, I still think its the perfect size and weight for that range of zoom.

[rg-tom]

yup I also LOVE heavy lenses :) as much as i like the quality of the nifty fifty for example, its just too light :(

[cricket]

Coming from a medium format background where the shutter is in the lens, and the whole outfit is heavy, the 24-70L works fine for me! I like it and it is on my camera most of the time.

The other "L" lenses I have are way heavier, and that is ok, because I usually have a tri-pod set up.

Really love the Canon digital so far, and even shot 2 weddings completely digital! Turned out excellent! I had the 24-70L on most all day and shot for 8+ hours! The stroboframe bracket and flash made it even heavier, but I managed fine!

[Raj]

I have very shaky hands & weight helps me here. I find my pics to be much sharp when taken with heavy lens. For this reason I would prefer reasonably heavy lens.

[Patrick DR]

Guys,
My 28-135 IS is going to the repair shop for the second time tomorrow. I'm on the point of getting the 24-70 to replace it. It's quality I'm after (and I can carry my 100-400 L IS all day so not bothered about the weight) Could you post a couple of photos to show me how sharp this lens is?

Thanks, Martin.

Here you can see three pictures of my 24-70L 2.8. Taken F2.8@50mm, F8.0@50mm and F22@50mm..
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gnista/24-70%202.8/. (http://www.xs4all.nl/~gnista/24-70%202.8/)

And another picture of my daughter is here.
http://www.eosdigitaal.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7996
Picture is straight out of the camera.

Patrick

[sugar_babygirli]

Haha! When I first got this lens I was like, "DANG this baby is heavy!!" :shock: I used the 85mm with my 20 D for almost two hours a few days before getting the 24-70 and my biceps hurt like CRAZY after plus were cramping. When this lens arrived, I made it my duty in life to lift weights and build strength.

After doing a ton of exercises every day for about 2 weeks, I can proudly say I built up the strength to hold that 24-70 on the 20D for 5 hours straight with NO pain or cramps after!

So that would be something to consider doing for all you with super heavy telephoto lenses too! :lol: I'm very petite (around 100 lbs or so) scrawny girl who is proud to now have arm muscles to hold that lens! :D:p

[eosster]

Think of it workout, LOL.