Yep, another 70-200 question. Weight/Handling

I'm saving for a 70-200. I've historically been pretty much a prime lens guy, for speed, and sharpness. Folks are finally convincing me I'm not giving up much (if anything) here.

I really want a 2.8. I don't think I'd be happy with an f4. Even at 2.8 it will one of the slower lenses in my bag.

I am most concerned with weight/handling. I'm in the process of selling a 150-500 (my only zoom). I really like the lens, but I find i just don't carry it/use it much due to weight/handling. I realize that is in a different league, but still concerned.

Is there a big difference in weight/balance hand-hold-ability between the Canon IS/Non-IS/Sigma options in this range? Does IS add much weight? Truthfully, I am leaning toward the canon 2.8 non-is, as I have the 200 2.8L, and do not really feel the lack of IS there. I don't know if I could swing the canon 2.8 IS II anyway. I generally buy used, but that can still be alot of shekels.

I would truly value any thoughts from folks that had used multiples of these.

(if anyone has a 70-200 of some flavor, and wants a 150-500 we should talk)

There will be a noticeable drop in weight from the Sigma 150-500, roughly a pound when compared to Canon 2.8 varieties. From there the IS versions gain around 4 ounces on the non-IS versions. I've had both versions of the 2.8 IS and I would have to say that they were both well balanced with a gripped 5DII/III, maneuvering is not difficult at all. I've shot 10-12 hours at a time with this combination and never experienced much fatigue. I've shot with a 7D as well, a bit front heavy but since you're gripped you should be better balanced.

For my shooting needs, I almost feel that this particular lens with IS is a must have just because it really raises the ceiling in what you can shoot. I could be panning a car down the highway and turn around to shoot a portrait. This may not be your shooting needs so a non-IS version may suffice.

Since you're coming from primes, you may be a bit disappointed with Version I wide-open but that's not to say the images are terrible. At least with my copy, I found the images quite sharp and plenty useful for me. However, Version II excels at shooting wide open. I have not ran any tests to compare but many have said Version II rivals many primes within this range. Some of the same people also replaced their primes with Version II because it performs so well.

jbrand wrote in post #15254884
I'm saving for a 70-200. I've historically been pretty much a prime lens guy, for speed, and sharpness. Folks are finally convincing me I'm not giving up much (if anything) here.

I really want a 2.8. I don't think I'd be happy with an f4. Even at 2.8 it will one of the slower lenses in my bag.

I am most concerned with weight/handling. I'm in the process of selling a 150-500 (my only zoom). I really like the lens, but I find i just don't carry it/use it much due to weight/handling. I realize that is in a different league, but still concerned.

Is there a big difference in weight/balance hand-hold-ability between the Canon IS/Non-IS/Sigma options in this range? Does IS add much weight? Truthfully, I am leaning toward the canon 2.8 non-is, as I have the 200 2.8L, and do not really feel the lack of IS there. I don't know if I could swing the canon 2.8 IS II anyway. I generally buy used, but that can still be alot of shekels.

I would truly value any thoughts from folks that had used multiples of these.

(if anyone has a 70-200 of some flavor, and wants a 150-500 we should talk)

With the pending release of the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 vibration control lens, there will be six 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses of various kinds available for Canon EOS cameras. From that group, the older non-stabilized Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens will be the lightest and least expensive. However, its autofocus quirks mean that any potential buyers should try the lens before making a purchase.

Anyone who is exceptionally concerned about weight and handling should avoid lenses longer than 300mm. Except for the handful of usable mirror lenses in the 500mm-600mm range, all of the super telephoto lenses are long, heavy and often need to be supported with a monopod. If you're worried about the mass of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, there's no way you would be able to be effective with a longer unit, especially the much larger Sigma 150-500mm lens.

Here are some weights for you

70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 1490g / 3.28 lbs.

70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - 1470g / 3.24 lbs.

70-200mm f/2.8L USM - 1310g / 2.9 lbs.

70-200mm f/4L IS USM - 760g / 26.8 oz.

70-200mm f/4L USM - 705g / 25 oz.

I guess I can speak on behalf of OP since i only had primes before getting a 70-200 zoom... but let me tell you something OP, once you get a 70-200.. you will hardly ever go back to your primes lol

I use 70-200 II 85% of the time I shoot anything now... the bokeh at 150mm+ @f/2.8 is amazing.. the IS is one of the best things ever invented.. I am able to handhold shots at 1/60-1/100 when using 150-200mm range and still get tac sharp results.

I'd say investing in version II will definitely be worth it because the IS ads so much to this lens.

This only prime I've used much since I've gotten the 70-200II is the 85L.. 35L has been used 2-3% of the time.. and 135L hasn't seen the front of my camera at all, so i'm considering selling it.

You did not specify what and how you photograph - it is important.
I used to have the F/4 IS version and it was much smaller and lighter. In the beginning 70-200 II's weights was a massive concern, but I got used to it. I even do street photography with it: http://www.dylikowski.​com …photography-and-emotions/

You can check all dimensions on-line and decide yourself. 70-200 II is not just the same lens with IS, it is much better optically,it is sharper with a better contrast.

jbrand wrote in post #15254884
I'm saving for a 70-200. I've historically been pretty much a prime lens guy, for speed, and sharpness. Folks are finally convincing me I'm not giving up much (if anything) here.

I really want a 2.8. I don't think I'd be happy with an f4. Even at 2.8 it will one of the slower lenses in my bag.

I am most concerned with weight/handling. I'm in the process of selling a 150-500 (my only zoom). I really like the lens, but I find i just don't carry it/use it much due to weight/handling. I realize that is in a different league, but still concerned.

Is there a big difference in weight/balance hand-hold-ability between the Canon IS/Non-IS/Sigma options in this range? Does IS add much weight? Truthfully, I am leaning toward the canon 2.8 non-is, as I have the 200 2.8L, and do not really feel the lack of IS there. I don't know if I could swing the canon 2.8 IS II anyway. I generally buy used, but that can still be alot of shekels.

I would truly value any thoughts from folks that had used multiples of these.

(if anyone has a 70-200 of some flavor, and wants a 150-500 we should talk)

+1 for the 70-200 is II.
Love them street shots Light_Pilgrim.

70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is one chunky meaty overweight glass. It is definitely worth lugging around as it will produce images as sharp as your primes. I didn't notice much going from IS to non-IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 is generally heavy.

Ok, it seems the consensus is, generally:

2.8 is the way to go.
IS is *really* nice, but costs you small amount in weight
The 2.8 IS II is a really sweet lens if you can afford it.

Didn't hear much about the 2.8 non-is or the siggy.

My shooting is mostly action - sports, wildlife, etc. A fair bit of the sports is indoor & night so the speed of the lens counts. I'm not really sure i see myself using this much for basketball anyway - 70mm on a crop is a little longer than I am usually shooting there anyway.

If i end up with the 28, i can see I may have to rework my bag a bit. I can probaly shed my 200 2.8L.

Thanks

Jim

SiaoP wrote in post #15256650
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is one chunky meaty overweight glass. It is definitely worth lugging around as it will produce images as sharp as your primes. I didn't notice much going from IS to non-IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 is generally heavy.

I'm gonna hafta rent one of these. I'm not really over-sensitive (to my mind) about lens weight - I'm a big guy. I just know the 150-500 was a bit over the top in weight and size. It was a bag all by itself. Statements like this do make me wonder a little.

I had the 2.8 non IS and 2.8 IS II. Both are outstanding lenses but the IS gives you so much versatility. I was able to shoot video handheld and you would never know it was not on a tripod. It also has a closer MFD which is great indoors. I eventually sold both lenses because of the size and weight but I may end up re-buying the 2.8 IS II someday, its really as good as everyone says.

Had the 70-200mm F/4 for a couple of weeks, traded it for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. by far my favorite lens and after awhile, you won't notice the weight.

I tried a friend's 70-200 f/4 about a year ago and really liked it, but I knew I should go for the f/2.8 and IS because I always try to shoot when there's not enough light, and think about my tripod after I take the shot instead of before.
I got the 70-200 2.8 IS II shortly after borrowing the f/4 and although weighty and not inexpensive, I haven't regretted it once. I love this lens, and use it as a walk around quite often. If your shy though, it does attract a little attention.