Canon 70-200 2.8 IS weight

potatotron wrote in post #4242928
But... you train dogs! That implies that you have a decent standard of physical fitness, one would think.

I have to admit I was only toting and shooting with the 5D and 70-200, so were only talking 5lb. Just hate to see somebody get scared off by the weight of 3.5lb lens vs a 1.7 lb 70-200-f4. Seem to be a huge consideration when choosing between the two.

I m really happy BH allowed the lens to come into a tempting price range that I was able to make the purchase. Again, wow love this lens.

Yeah i was concerned about the weight right before i bought mine. Now that i think about it, it is nothing. Shot a race all day last sunday. Had the 70-200 f2.8IS and the 100-400 around my neck all day with a backpack on. Towards the very end i did feel a bit sluggish but i did walk from end to end of the track a couple of times. But i loce the IQ of the lens it is damn sharp.

Yeah I was concerned till it arrived and it really didn't bother me, then had exactly the same thing happen with the Sigma 150mm

I must say that to me the lens is very easy to manage. But then again I am used to the 100-400L and the 70-200 2.8 IS is much more controllable since it doesn't rotate in or out.

SaSi wrote in post #4243364
If you are "budgeting" for shutter speed, then you can *almost* consider the lenses equal. For static subjects yes. But this extra real stop can allow you to shoot at 1/500 instead of 1/250 and freeze moving subjects.

Now, there are other factors to consider as well. An f/2.8 lens will benefit from special AF points and sensors and give faster AF with EOS bodies that support this feature. Also, the wider apperture will allow the lens to behave better in low light AF, something that can be very important for certain applications, such as indoor sports, weddings, etc.

The lens is big but not as heavy in holding it as it weighs. The balance is good and the lens gives good grips. Weight is something that can be considered subjective. Larger people can always cary it with ease. But size is something more objective, especially when it comes to fitting the kit in a small gear bag.

I used to have the Sigma 80-400, and while that lens was heavier than the 7-200/2.8, I was able to carry it easily and hand hold it for hours. But I hated the big size of an "all-round-medium-zoom-telephoto". It was all I had for shooting longer than 85mm, and it was big. I sometimes carried with me the 75-300 instead.

So, my choice on the f/4IS was the fact it is as big as the normal 70-300 telephotos and easy to carry with me everywhere.

i prefer the f4 for that reason too. plus i don't need to leave it behind when i carry my 100-400L .

ed rader

C'mon! It's all about getting good images. If that lens came out next year 2x the weight with f2.0... I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Suck it up!

Congrats on your new lens.. I am sure you will be enjoying it a lot.

Congrats on the lens. I'll be getting one soon. Now just gotta save a few thousand more pennies...

Lorem wrote in post #4248352
C'mon! It's all about getting good images. If that lens came out next year 2x the weight with f2.0... I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Suck it up!

I'm not sure I'd go for that.

Plus at what twice the cost?

I find heavy gear makes me feel more confident, which, relieves stress and nerves. Thus, I can concentrate on making photographs. They always come out better.

I guess I need to go test out the weight of this one then.

I'm young but female with a terrible back, I train dogs as well, but although I can run through a field for 30 minutes, I don't think I could do it carrying something heavy, honestly my XTi and light lenses are pushing it. Maybe I should give it a chance!

tfitz wrote in post #4242445
Hi!
I rented this for a wedding and have to say, it wasn't bad at all...carried it around for 12 hours. However, from what I understand, it provides 3 stops IS, while the F4 provides 4 stops, so they are more or less equal speed lenses. I also found that at F2.8 anywhere near the 200mm end was nearly impossible to shoot with. This is because when people move even slightly, that kind of razor thin DOF moves out to quickly, so I wound up shooting at F4 for almost the whole time. So while I think it's worth considering, the F4 is as well given the most likely shooting scenarios with it.

Good luck with it..it's an unbelievable piece of hardware.

I have had the 70-200 in every type available. I sold the f/4 IS L as I needed the f/2.8. When you need the added f stop the 4 stop IS is most assuredly NOT a substitute for the f/2.8. Anyone who has ACTUALLY shot both will tell you that they are not "more or less equal speed lenses". They are only equal if you really did not need the speed to begin with.

VLadyinRed wrote in post #4249326
I guess I need to go test out the weight of this one then.

I'm young but female with a terrible back, I train dogs as well, but although I can run through a field for 30 minutes, I don't think I could do it carrying something heavy, honestly my XTi and light lenses are pushing it. Maybe I should give it a chance!

I would rent it first if you can. The great thing is that the lens doesn't extend when zooming, so it stays a constant length. To men that makes this lens more managable.

This lens is a bit on the heavy side. No issue walking around with it but...after taking shots of the Red Sox for 9 solid innings hand held (700 odd shots) the part of my hand between the pointer and thumb was in a bit of pain. Well worth the pain, mind you.

To me, its not the weight of a SINGLE lens, its the combined weight of trying to carry everything at once. (see list below). If you consider potentially 2 5Ds (if I take both) then its a whole lot of weight to lug around.

Mark H