24-70 f2.8 L Heavy

Just got myself a 24-70 L. Now I see why they call it "The Brick." This thing has some weight to it. But, from what I've shot so far, this lens is great. Just need to practice a bit. Better brake out the weights.

Congrats on the new lens!!! Post up a few samples

Oh come now. 2.5 lbs. That's nothin'. Pick up a 500L. Even that "seems" light at 10 lbs. That's some weight.


Great lens. I've always had a "thing" for it. Just got lucky number 13 yesterday.

Space wrote in post #3098696
Just got myself a 24-70 L. Now I see why they call it "The Brick." This thing has some weight to it. But, from what I've shot so far, this lens is great. Just need to practice a bit. Better brake out the weights.

my biggest complaint with the brick is the weight. you'll either get used to the weight or you won't.

i'm used to it....but honestly it did take awhile !

ed rader

Nice buy. Have fun with your new lens.

Mark

That's nothing. Get used to the 24-70L and then get yourself the 70-200 2.8 IS! Now, that's a heavy lens! Good thing I'm used to them both now.

Congrats! Look forward to see some ducks

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #3098715
Oh come now. 2.5 lbs. That's nothin'. Pick up a 500L. Even that "seems" light at 10 lbs. That's some weight.

Great lens. I've always had a "thing" for it. Just got lucky number 13 yesterday.

that sounds like some of the spin that comes out of washington that seldom works on even the most severely dumbed down .

ed rader

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #3098715
Great lens. I've always had a "thing" for it. Just got lucky number 13 yesterday.

For those of us who don't know the entire history of the bricklayer- do tell. Why do/did you require 13 bricks. Are you building the Great Wall of Canon?

how small are you to be worried about the weight? i just dont get it, i even think the 70-200 2.8 is fine, ohh well, gl with it, i have found with mine its taken me a little while to finally get the best out of it.

CIDER wrote in post #3099134
how small are you to be worried about the weight? i just dont get it, i even think the 70-200 2.8 is fine, ohh well, gl with it, i have found with mine its taken me a little while to finally get the best out of it.

i don't think a person's size is the only factor here. in fact the canon 24-70L is the heaviest zoom in its class so if you are used to something lighter it will be heavy.

of course if you use the 500L (most of us never will) or pick up the rear end of my tundra (again, most never will) you'll find the 24-70L light in comparison .

ed rader

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #3098715
Oh come now. 2.5 lbs. That's nothin'. Pick up a 500L. Even that "seems" light at 10 lbs. That's some weight.

Wow the 500 only weighs as much as 4 bricks.

Great lens. You'll love it. Once you see your pics you won't care how heavy it is. It may well become your favorite lens.

BradT0517 wrote in post #3099182
Wow the 500 only weighs as much as 4 bricks.

Good way to think about it. Doesn't sound heavy at all to me now!

I don't mind the weight of the brick at all. Seems the perfect weight for a lens to me. Perfect feel of "substance", too, I'd say.

ajbalazic wrote in post #3098905
For those of us who don't know the entire history of the bricklayer- do tell. Why do/did you require 13 bricks. Are you building the Great Wall of Canon?

I've been advised by my counsel not to disclose that information.

Try a 5D+grip+brick+580+cp-e3 in one hand with a hand strap and a 420 in the other hand. I am not small or weak but I sometimes think my wrist will break off. The pain is worth it though.