The weight of a 70-200
- Thread starter MindofMel
- Start date
When you said "and for those L snobs"... then the bloke posts a load of L lenses for pretty much his first post.
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
twist said:
But he wasn't being snobby about it in his comments!
Just because you own L lenses doesn't make you an L lens snob but putting just as capable equipment down just because it's not an L lens does!
Last edited:
Jim , it can be perceived that way, by replying to your comments posting the Canon gear. Anyway.
BTW. I wasnt putting down your Sigma 70-200mm either, its a decent lens for the price but you cannot say its optically of the same quality or better than L lenses or L primes.
BTW. I wasnt putting down your Sigma 70-200mm either, its a decent lens for the price but you cannot say its optically of the same quality or better than L lenses or L primes.
Last edited:
smudgie49
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 380
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I almost always handhold my Nikon 70-200mm (with the rare exception of popping it onto a mono for a low light church wedding shot at 1/15th), I sometimes handhold my Sigma120-300mm but usually have it on a monopod and I NEVER handhold my Nikon 500mm f/4. You'll get used to the weight...eventually!
twist said:
Oh you reffering to the sigma?
Haven't used it so can't comment, but I have no doubt there are some lenses out there that match L glass for IQ without the price tag. Some won't have the build quality though.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
twist said:
I appreciate what your saying (and dont worry, I don't have shares in sigma!), but, I only said they were as sharp as my canon primes not L primes (my primes are the 50mm f/1.8 II, 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 so no L primes!) I was simply saying that it's comparable to those lenses in sharpness.
Then comments about it not being L standard came up. Well it is optically, as good as some, but not all L glass which was my other point. But I never said it was as sharp as L primes!
tx8koibito
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30
- Edit My Images
- No
Jim just to let u know I wasn't being a snob or direct anything at you..... I'm just responsding to the thread about the weight of my gears
Hi tx8koibito, apologies for making the assumption.
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
wouldnt worry about it, nothing was really aimed at you..
its just the whole sigma vs canon thing often gets a little heated.
Still very surprised theyre as sharp as those primes, esp if the primes are stopped down to 2.8 and youre talking sharpness of the Sigma being on par at 200mm 2.8. Guess we'll agree to disagree.
apersson850
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17
- Name
- Anders
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah, they aren't that heavy - bit more than a bag of sugar.
Something that makes it far, far easier to handold is to hold the camera+lens at its centre of gravity. When I've seen people complain that heavy lenses 'unbalance' their setups, it seems to be because they hold too far forward or back, forcing to apply torque as well as support. This is usually around the zoom ring (depending on the box you have behind it). If you're holding there, you should be able to just hold the lens+camera in you left hand without needing to twist to stop it rotating. Then add the other hand and you're golden
Something that makes it far, far easier to handold is to hold the camera+lens at its centre of gravity. When I've seen people complain that heavy lenses 'unbalance' their setups, it seems to be because they hold too far forward or back, forcing to apply torque as well as support. This is usually around the zoom ring (depending on the box you have behind it). If you're holding there, you should be able to just hold the lens+camera in you left hand without needing to twist to stop it rotating. Then add the other hand and you're golden
shabba
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 936
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to sound harsh but they are very average images indeed.
To be fair to the original poster, those examples he put on are probably the best I've seen from a Sigma 70-200.
here as some of mine from when I hired one, porbably pointless as they are tiny (from FB). But I found it was ok but not mega sharp, most of these were close to 200mm I believe, and a range of F stops as I was on time priority mode to ensure I got the shutter speed I wanted.
I think this was on a 350D too.
I don't have a problem hand holding my 70-200 VR II but that is only on a D7000. I am thinking about getting a grip just for the extra ease of use though.
One thing that might help is getting a Black Rapid strap (or similar)....works so well and makes these lenses less cumbersome.
One thing that might help is getting a Black Rapid strap (or similar)....works so well and makes these lenses less cumbersome.
God
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 723
- Name
- Vaughan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is very good advice, Ive found it invaluable using the same techniques as I did when I used to shoot long distance, the same completely applies. Ironically if you hold your breath it makes you shake more, its best to control your breathing and shoot on the bottom of the exhale.
That being said, if the shot needs taking, take it!!
Been thinking of a BR but may save a few quid and get a Q strap, any thoughts? Any recommendations guys?
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
I used the Tamron version for a while and got so sick of carting it around I sold it and replaced it with a lighter version. Quality glass, but bloomin eck do your arms get tired. Can't exactly slip it in a shoulder bag either so it spent a lot of its time at home.