The weight of a 70-200

MindofMel

MindofMel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,586
Name
Mel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, just got hold of a sigma 70/200 f2.8 off of chrisphoto...

the thing weighs a ton! the 80/200 is heavier as is the nikon 70/200 vr1 - how the **** do you lot hand hold these things... they are bohemoths.. i have watched about 5 dvds of togs walking around snapping with these things handheld - am i just to presume that their shutter speeds were 1/250+ all the time?

anyone put faith in a monopod?
 
I think its a case of getting used to the lens weight, I felt much more comfortable after a couple weeks of use and now handholding isnt really an issue. Although I do benefit from in body IS which helps a bit.
 
i've got the canon one, mine weights about 1.2kg. with flash/batteries i don't think the whole lot can be far shy off 3kg.

thing is though, you will just get used to it and when you stick your short primes back on your camera will feel like a toy for a while!
 
Also work on your breathing whilst taking shots. Sounds silly at first, but proves itself to be very important at low shutter speeds and heavy equipment! Similar to rifle/gun techniques that marksmen use iirc.
 
cuthbert said:
i've got the canon one, mine weights about 1.2kg. with flash/batteries i don't think the whole lot can be far shy off 3kg.

thing is though, you will just get used to it and when you stick your short primes back on your camera will feel like a toy for a while!
Click to expand...

indeed, ive got into hand holding the 120-300 which is 2.6kg alone, plus the 1D which is another 1.5kg it was initially hard work but its easier these days. the 70-200 feels like a feather in comparison :D
 
MindofMel said:
Hi all, just got hold of a sigma 70/200 f2.8 off of chrisphoto...

the thing weighs a ton! the 80/200 is heavier as is the nikon 70/200 vr1 - how the **** do you lot hand hold these things... they are bohemoths.. i have watched about 5 dvds of togs walking around snapping with these things handheld - am i just to presume that their shutter speeds were 1/250+ all the time?

anyone put faith in a monopod?
Click to expand...


You want to try using a Nikon 300 f/2.8 handheld :lol:
 
I heard you can then officially change your name to Arnold.
 
I use a Red snapper mono with mine sometimes, mounted onto the tripod collar, but im pretty much a fare weather shooter. Whats your copy like wide open at 200? Most are soft.
 
I hired one, loved the weight, Im weird and more weight the better for me.

I'm somewhat about average in strength probably though. How does this compare to the other 70-200's from Canon (2.8 and 4.0).
 
MindofMel said:
nobody putting faith in monopods then?
Click to expand...

nope, i find a monopod too restrictive. plus youre taking a 1.3kg lens and adding another 1.3kg working weight by the time youve added a head to the monopod.. granted the downward weight of that is supported but the sideways motion of the camera and lens is going to require more effort.
 
twist said:
I use a Red snapper mono with mine sometimes, mounted onto the tripod collar, but im pretty much a fare weather shooter. Whats your copy like wide open at 200? Most are soft.
Click to expand...

So far, at the 200 end at f2.8 its defo a lil softer but dropping down to f3.2/3.5 does wonders.
 
MindofMel said:
So far, at the 200 end at f2.8 its defo a lil softer but dropping down to f3.2/3.5 does wonders.
Click to expand...

Found that to, by F4 its pretty nice but not as sharp as my Minolta 80-200 HS G when its at F2.8. For half the price though its a decent performer.
 
lensflair said:
I use the nikon 70-200 VR II can easily hand hold at 1/40 sec.
Click to expand...

I can do so with the sigma - it becomes 2nd nature when you get used to handling it.
 
MindofMel said:
So far, at the 200 end at f2.8 its defo a lil softer but dropping down to f3.2/3.5 does wonders.
Click to expand...

I find mine is still very sharp at f/2.8 & 200mm. I often use 2.8 with indoor show jumping and the images it produces are lovely.
 
Alot of this will also depend on what you think sharp is, as people have differing ideas on this.
 
twist said:
Alot of this will also depend on what you think sharp is, as people have differing ideas on this.
Click to expand...

Not really, sharp is sharp unless you have an ocular disorder.

The siggy is as sharp as my canon primes.
 
twist said:
Now that is surprising.
Click to expand...

Optically it's by far my best lens, and I don't have a bad set of glass!
 
odd jim said:
Optically it's by far my best lens, and I don't have a bad set of glass!
Click to expand...

Are we talking better optically than an L lens?

Possible you just have the sharpest Sigma 70-200 in existence if its better than your primes.
 
twist said:
Are we talking better optically than an L lens?

Possible you just have the sharpest Sigma 70-200 in existence if its better than your primes.
Click to expand...

I'd it's optically on par with L standard yes. Maybe not optically as good as the canon 70-200 2.8L but certainly as good, if not better optically than some other L glass Ive used. The 100-400l IS for one.
 
Last edited:
MindofMel said:
You guys got flickr's? Would love to have a look through some of your sigma 70/200 snaps..
Click to expand...

No I dont use flickr but I can post some shots up when I have access to my pc if you want to see?
 
MindofMel said:
You guys got flickr's? Would love to have a look through some of your sigma 70/200 snaps..
Click to expand...

only ones i have to hand..

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=260909

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=307109

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=307328

otherwise check the link in my sig (might need to see my first reply), the slideshow on the home page.. pics 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 14 and 16 should all be sig 70-200 "macro" shots.
 
I find that this lens is optically better/on par than L lenses very hard to believe. I have had 4 or 5 copies of this lens on differing mounts and can confidently say if this is optically as good as L glass, then I will never buy into the Canon system.
 
twist said:
Are we talking better optically than an L lens?

Possible you just have the sharpest Sigma 70-200 in existence if its better than your primes.
Click to expand...

Agreed, sorry but I hired the Sigma, it was good but no way is it prime sharp! especially at 200mm. Great lens still.
 
shabba said:
Agreed, sorry but I hired the Sigma, it was good but no way is it prime sharp! especially at 200mm. Great lens still.
Click to expand...

Lol we'll agree to disagree then! I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it.

And for those L snobs, I've used / owned a few non L lenses that are easily as good optically as L stuff, the canon EFS 10-22 being one of them. L isn't the be all and end all of lenses, though the build quality is usually much better.
 
this is what i have to deal with

2.jpg

ssssss.jpg
 
ooookay. Comedy timing that that post came up right after yours Jim.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top