Do you factor size and weight much into which lens you purchase?

As you get into the pro grade equipment ( 24-70, 70-200 etc ) it starts to get large. For pro work I don't see this as an issue but when

casual shooters purchase gear do you put much thought into this? When suggesting lenses does anyone mind the extra weight?

 

This is more out of curiosity. For example the Canon 17-55 to the Tamron 17-50. both are good but the Canon is probably a little better ( I

never did a side by side but I have looked at comparisons on line.) Anyway, I would think for the average person the Tamron would be

more then enough and when you compare the size, the Canon is much larger. Does anyone want to carry a larger lens when traveling or

just taking casual shots? Unless the lens is something huge like a 70-200 2.8 do you factor size into your choice much?

 

Again just interested in peoples take on this.

 

thanks

I would say I am an average intermediate photographer. When I buy lenses, I factor in two major considerations. Is it

for artistic pursuits or is it for casual shots/walkaround. The former, expense, weight and size fall way behind IQ.

They are almost not considered. For casual shots, as long as the IQ is moderate, size, and weight would sway me

from one unit to another.

 

I hope I made sense. /bing

There is no doubt that the longer "L" lenses are heavy. I would say that weight does not factor into the choice unless one is physically challenged to either hand hold or carry around a big lens. Often times you can use a mono or tri, but the lens still has to be brought to location.

It would be nice to have a light lens to perform the equivalent of the long zooms, but so far this substitute has not been available.

I have no such physical problem and do not mind the size/weight.

Life is really too short to worry too much about weight with lenses of focal lengths 200mm and smaller. For an XXD camera, like the 40D, I cannot think of a better walk-around lens than the 16-35 2.8L, version I or II. That lens will outlast any camera you hook it up with.

 

DSLRs are just fancy imaging computers that get pretty long-in-the-tooth around the 3-4 year mark; lenses only get "better" and retain their value through out You already know that as you ask 1,000 lens questions here! ;-)

very funny Ken, Now I am not sure if I feel like a geek or a pest...... or both :-} haha. all my questions have helped me put

together a very good set of lenses. anyway this one is strictly curiosity. I read many of the other questions posted by

others and I notice many don't discuss the size, weight.

The additional one or two stops of a pro lens is often seen as valuable for situations involving low light or requiring

high shutter speeds. Additionally, a pro lens is likely to be built more sturdily and to have better sealing against rain

or snow. Of less obvious value, though I've been told by pro sports photographers that it is commonly demanded, is

the dramatically decreased depth of field when using, for example, the 400/2.8 wide open, beast that it is. My 70-

200/2.8, bought on Ebay years ago, has proved to be a great lens, but this lens will definitely test your arms and

wrists when you've been handholding it all day. As digital cameras achieve higher quality with high ISO settings,

some of the pro lens advantages diminish. What it really comes down to is whether X amount of increase in quality

and capability is worth Y amount of aggravation and Z amount of extra expense. Each person's variables will differ.

The only time I worry about the weight is when I load them all into my backpack and put it on. ;-)

 

More seriously, I did consider the size of my backpack given the lenses I intended to buy, and made sure it would have the room I needed.

 

In terms of the lenses themselves, no.

I do consider weight and dimensions. The smaller/lighter lens is more likely to be taken along, easier to handle, more discreet, etc. Sure it's a factor.

1 body + 1 L lens 300 mm or shorter = no problem. 10 lenses + 2 1D/Ds series bodies + assorted junk (and especially the assorted junk) = big problem. So, yes, weight is a factor but since good glass is almost always heavy there is no way around it. Make 'em light and small(er) - plastic lenses and bakelite bodies would be great :-)))

I do hike in the mountains and weight is absolutely an issue there, and I want to take all with me. As I am on a budget, I consider three things, weight, quality and in the end price....

For casual use I like the lighter lenses, but I feel more comfortable with a lens that has a little heft to it like the 28-105 F4. Some lenses like the 50mm 1.8 are so light, they are fragile. For professional and critical work I would switch to a heavier better lens in a minute. After all, that is why I bought it in the first place. Another problem with the heavier and more expensive lenses is that they are easily identifiable in case you happen to be in dubious surroundings.

For what I'm doing weight is very important. I would consider myself an above average photographer, I contribute pics to 2 auto racing websites, sold many pics, and have had some pics published. At the racetrack walking around with a ton of glass can be exhausting. I used a 70-200 F4 as a staple lens for a long time but recently was tempted to buy a 2.8 version. I lugged that thing around along with a 400 5.6 L for 4 days in Georgia last month. When I got back I processed about 1000 shots and compared them to the F4 and found no difference. I didn't use the 2.8 setting in the bright sunny conditions at all and felt I never would so I sold the 2.8 and bought another F4! By the way, I chose the Tamron 17-50 over the Canon 17-55 strickly by cash.......the images weren't twice as good for twice the money, 500.00 is better in my pocket then the lens dealer! My one wish from Canon would be a 70-300 L the same size as the DO lens....would solve my backache problems!

I absolutely consider weight and size, along with the typical IQ and feature requirements. I recently bought a 450D and a Tamron 17-50 just for those reasons, and I'm a relatively big young guy. My favorite camera is my little 35mm rangefinder, so even the 450D and Tamron feel big to me. I wanted this camera to use for (among other things) shooting landscapes on multi-day backpacking trips in the mountains. The size of the camera / lens dictates the size of the tripod, and that is the single biggest component of my kit. With this little camera / lens I can (with much care) get away with using a 2 lb Slik Sprint Pro tripod. That just wouldn't work with the Canon 17-55, and no, IS is not a substitute for a tripod.

 

One of my biggest complaints about digital cameras has been the lack of diversity. With film, there are many styles of cameras; RFs, medium format folders, small SLRs, big SLRs, view cameras, TLRs. etc., all of which can produce top notch results. But to get top notch results from digital? Big honking DSLR. I'm really excited to see where this micro 4/3rds thing goes, and I keep hoping for a better, more affordable, digital RF too.

I'm a keen traveller / hiker / backcountry skier. Every gram counts.

 

I shoot XTi with T 17-50/2.8. Very high performance for the weight, produces great looking 13"x19" prints. Other

advantages of small gear: doesn't scream Steal Me as much (big concern when travelling). Cheaper. Smaller front

element is not as intimidating to some subjects. Besides being lighter than metal, plastic is nicer to use in very cold

temps, doesn't stick to the fingers like metal.

 

If I were a studio shooter I think I'd prefer a bigger camera. They are a bit easier to operate - larger grips, zoom and

focus rings and such.

No. No. Depends. No.

I tend to select on quality, size and handling. I prefer the 70-200 4 versus the 2.8 because I don't really need the speed. I'll probably buy the 17-40L in the future, not buying the 17-55/2.8 because that's bigger, weighs more and handles less smoothly.

 

 

(I also have a handy but not too good 18-200 and the pretty breakable 50/1.8 both practicale choices and very affordable.)

<p>No. No. Depends. No.</p>

When it comes to Canon digital equipment, weight is not a consideration. However, the total weight of Canon was a

consideration in my purchase of a Mamiya 7II system for those times that I wanted to take an extended hike with high

quality equipment but didn't want a lot of weight. [Also, there are times when I just prefer to use film, and again the

Mamiya does the job.]

I haven't really thought much about it until lately. My 24-105 seemed huge when I first got it and now it's kinda normal.

But a lighter option is sure nice since sometimes its nice to travel light or if I am going on a trip thats not really a big

photo destination I still want a camera. I like a 28 1.8 on my 40D, no external flash so its fairly compact. I agree with

above about a set up screaming steal me. Sometimes its nice to keep it small and simple.

 

I am not a big fan of point and clicks but I tried out a G10 and its pretty nifty. Has a nice feel and I like that you can

attach a flash to it too but the big stuff sure spoils you on quality. I am not sure I can go back.

I did weddings and sports with heavy lenses. On my last wedding, a large one, I was carrying an ETRSi and two Canon

bodies while going in between the ceremony and the reception when I dropped my three pound 70-200 on the sidewalk

while trying to change it. Was all that weight too much? You bet it was. I was too greedy to hire an assistant. If I

could get performance out of something smaller I would. The 70-200 survived as it bounced about two feet off a very

strong lens hood, It is now 13 years old and so is the hood. I have one other three pound lens. I was using it

handheld this afternoon. If I could get 400mm with less weight I would. I have a 28-105 one pounder as a walkaround

as well as a 17-40L.. After thirteen years of weddings, sports, PJ etc.' I am ready for some genius to invent a

lightweight long lenses. I am tired of carrying three pounds plus camera around. My advice is get a monopod not for the image but for

the

arms. Much easier to get through a football game with one.

When I'm doing a short job I'll use my Nikon 28-70. I used to use it for weddings, but now I use the inferior but MUCH lighter Tamron 17-50. There was only so much Tylenol I could swallow. Yeah. It matters.

I do consider size and weight quite heavily and consider myself a casual shooter.

 

As a side note, I find it interesting reading people's opinions of lenses and cameras. Weight and size often come

up. A lens is either enormous and hefty with great build quality or dinky and plastic and crumbles at a glance.

Weight and size and build quality all seem tied together. It seems as though there aren't as many classes of

lenses as there are cameras, and that may be why people generally hold on to lenses for a much longer period of

time than a body. You may have consumer gear and aren't willing or don't need to take that giant leap (in size,

weight, and mostly cost) to that pro level (aka- Me) In bodies there will be entry level and consumer models,

then mid grade and prosumer models, and then professional models. There is one for everybody and a seemingly

linear progression towards "better" gear. When it comes to lenses there are usually cheaply made consumer zooms

or a solid pro zoom counterpart with a great disparity between the two.

 

This isn't a complaint, just something I find interesting and have been thinking about.

I don't factor size or weight versus image quality. I have found that discretion is somewhat of an issue when using a 70-200 f4 L. in public. You may as well carry a blinking neon sign with a siren! Everyone will notice you, good and bad.

Cheers! and great shooting!

Since I do a lot of photography while on the trail (sometimes for as long as two week and often including trailless passes at

12,000' and higher... and I'm getting older!) I do consider the weight against the utility of the heavier lenses. This is, for

example, one reason that I have the f/4 version of the 70-200mm lens.

 

I would likely _not_ compromise image quality for weight savings.

 

Dan

As a climber/back-country skier I factor lens and camera weight/size "heavily". Speed = safety on many of the climbs I do and my partners are often younger and in better shape than I am, so I need every advantage I can get! I also carry the camera on a bag on the hip belt of my pack for easy access (speed again), so a big camera/lens combo is too bulky. When I really have to move it I just bring the G9.

 

If I had enough $ to buy a second camera I'd get a 5D II with a set of L series lenses for casual hiking and civilized shooting.