How heavy is a EF 70-200 2.8 IS

  • Thread starter Thread starter whiteflyer
  • Start date Start date
W

whiteflyer

Guest
Everywhere I read they say this is a very heavy lens. Can you nice folk who have one give your thought on this, is it too heavy to carry around for 3 or 4 hours at a time, or did you just get used to it.

Cheers Mark
 
You get used to it (or I did). I use it on a 1D Mk II and together they weigh 3.5 kg. I am happy swinging that around all day following planes and birds. What I do try to remember to do though is take off the lens collar if I don't have a tripod with me. It weighs 185g and is pointless weight a lot of the time. Amazes me the number of big lenses you see, with no tripods in sight, still sporting collars...
 
I was a little worried about the weight before I made my purchase but was pleasantly surprised how well balanced it felt on a 1DMKII.

I have walked around with it for several hours at a time........don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's light but not as heavy or uncomfortable as I first feared.....anyway the quality of it makes any aches and pains worth it :thumbs:
 
I use it alday long at 3 day motosport event hand held using tc and not, without a problem. infact its lighter then the lens it replaced.
 
No problems here either - it's heavy but not as heavy as the 100-400L and I can shoot with either all day. :)
 
same here, it's fine on a 1D MkII all day which lasts from 9.30AM till about 5.30 PM
 
Its a heavy llegitimate chappie, but shipped it around Morocco without my arms falling off :)
 
And I can say I carried mine around all afternoon today without even really thinking of the weight. That was 30D, battery grip, 70-200 & 2x TC. Haven't got a clue how much all that lot actually weighs but it's true - you do get used to it.
 
Well... it's just over twice the weight of your 30D w/o a battery in it, or like carrying 1 & 1/2 bags of sugar or if you prefer, as much as your camera and all three of the lenses in your sig + another 50 f/1.8 :) . Having said that, IMO you do get used to the weight.
 
Thanks everyone, I just have to convince myself f2.8 over f4 is worth the 50% price increase :shrug: :thinking:
 
Really depends if you plan to get TC silly with it to try and reach those bikes at the corners you can never get close enough too...

If you plan TC madness you need to start as wide as you can get.
 
i am happy enough with mine with either non or all tc's fitted. others may not be, but its a cheapish way to decent results when combined with either tc, i know others rate it with a 2x TC, it as good or better at 400mm then 100-400mm, but equal it again at 300mm.

The 2.8 is a better low light level lens then the f4, (apperently can say for the bit) and anything below 200mm the the 200 wins. As for the sharpness between the f4 and f2.8 i read the data, couldnt see much in it, and the assioated review prefered the f2.8 for low light

the test data
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

tester review
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

be nice to have the 400mm prime (on order) and 500mm (planning to get) plus 600mm wouldnt it, but who can serously afford all that in one go?

the 2.8 will see okay results upto 560mm ok not stunning but i think there more then acceptable, even seen a few pro's that have taken worse of the same subjects and corners while alot closer to the track.
 
blinekrz said:
ive heard the 2.8 is is not as sharp as f4 version, is this true??
Click to expand...

Dont know mate - I've had both of these and can't tell the difference. I love the IS and the bokeh of the 2.8 version (my f/4 was non-IS)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top