How heavy is 70-200 f2.8 IS

[quicksilver1]

I have been on a lookout for telephoto lenses and think I have saved

enough for a 70-200 2.8 IS. Question is how heavy it is? If it is too

heavy I will go with 1\3 weight of 70-200 f4.

 

I am comfortable with 17-40 f4 weight.

 

Since there is no store around here where I can check it out for

real, the question has good amount of importance attached.

 

Raj

[ssonne]

It's big and heavy and a great lens...<br><br>

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture - 70-200mm 1:2.8<br>

Lens Construction - 23 elements in 18 groups<br>

Diagonal Angle of View - 34? - 12?<br>

Focus Adjustment - Inner focusing system with USM<br>

Closest Focusing Distance - 1.3m / 4.3 ft.<br>

Zoom System - Rotating Type<br>

Filter Size - 77mm<br>

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight - 3.4" x 7.8", 3.24 lbs. / 86.2mm x 197mm, 1470g<br>

[quicksilver1]

That I do know. Intrestingly, when I pick such a weight in the hand, it is not much. But, it is a whole different story with camera attached (Elan 7NE). Is it too much of a weight for a 5'8" medium built HANDHELD.

[alexdi]

If you're willing to spend $1500 on a lens, surely you can afford $30 in dumbbells.

 

:~)

 

DI

[awindsor]

I bought the 70-200/4 because the 2.8 felt too heavy the first time I handled it on my

EOS 5.

 

Interestingly I was in the local camera store this weekend and there were Canon reps

selling 20D's and various 1D's and they had a 2.8 on hand. I put it on my new 20D

and found it more stable than my 70-200/4. I think the 20D is heavier than my EOS 5

and that moves the centre of mass to the point on the lens where my hand normally

supports the lens. The additional weight made it sit perfectly in my hand and it was

rock steady. The real test would be whether you could use it handheld all day. My

guess is you would feel it quickly. The IS might compensate for muscle fatigue

somewhat.

 

The 17-40/4L is not a very heavy lens and it is short. The problem with the

telephotos lenses is not purely a question of weight but also of leverage. The 70-

200/2.8L IS combines being heavy and long.

 

I am also of 5'8" and of moderate build. I would not have taken the 70-200/2.8 but

are very tempted by the IS. If there was a 70-200/4 IS I would have taken that as the

best compromise. Money was not the main issue but for the difference in price I can

almost pick up a 300/4L IS.

[jon_austin]

David: LOL!

 

Alistair: The 70-200 f/4L IS is 2nd on my "I Wish Canon Would Build One" list, right after the 28-80 f/4L...

[camilla]

I don't have the IS version, but the older non IS. It's a wonderful lens, BUT, I feel I almost never use it because it's too heavy to handhold. Now I only bring it along when I'm going to stay in one place and bring a tripod. To walk around for hours with this lens is out of the question for me. Sadly, it mostly sits on the shelf.

[will_perlis]

"Is it too much of a weight for a 5'8" medium built HANDHELD."

 

For holding up at the ready during a two hour parade, IMX yes, it's far too heavy. That's why carbon fiber monopods evolved from the primordial tree branch. For ordinary shooting it's heavy but not unreasonable. For reference, I'm 5'8" and lift Martinis for exercise.

[mike kelly]

I had the chance to try the 2.8, the 2.8 IS and the f4 with my 10D in a camera shop before

buying. I'd never picked up a "serious" zoom before and have to admit to being somewhat

taken aback by the 2.8s! Although they both oooooozed quality, they are somewhat

intimidating if you're new to that class of lens, as well as being surprisingly heavy.

 

I found the f4 a great compromise that's manageable to walk around with and not

ridiculously "in your face" for street use. I'm very happy with it, and bought a 1.4x

extender that can easily be carried in a pack or added for wildlife etc..

[beauh44]

I have the 2.8 and it is a hoss. But, it's definitely the sharpest zoom that I own and having the ability to blur that background (with really nice bokeh) is great for making your subject stand out and in low light. Will's CF tripod suggestion is good; one slight twist would be to get a monopod. There's somebody here on Photonet (can't recall his name) who handholds the EF 500mm f/4. Now *that* lens is a bazooka! I just don't have the strength in my arms to do that for longer than 15-20 seconds. I suppose I could workout more, but every time I get the urge to excercise, I'll lie down 'til the thought passes. ;-)

[steve_dunn2]

<p>As others have said, it's too heavy if you intend to hold it in front of your face for hours at a time, but if you can afford this lens, you can surely afford a monopod or tripod, and then you no longer have to support the lens' weight.</p>

 

<p>I'm a 5'9" guy, with a slim build, who enjoys lifting weights but is not in the habit of trying to hold the weights in the air for prolonged periods. I have the 300/4L IS USM, which weighs a bit less than the 70-200/2.8 lenses do, and an Elan 7E. I have no problem holding this equipment for a minute or two at a time - but I have a monopod and a tripod, so I usually don't handhold it for prolonged periods. I've played with the 70-200/2.8L IS USM and I fully intend to get one some day; the extra weight is not an issue for me.</p>

[andrew_certain]

I carry my 70-200 2.8 IS on my 10D all the time. I rarely shoot anything other than handheld. It's certainly not light, but I've never felt like I couldn't hold it as long as I wanted. I always have my shoulder bag there so that I don't have to carry it when I'm not shooting. Unfortunately, though, I don't think that there's any way for you to know if it's too heavy *for you* without giving it a shot. Maybe there's a photo.net'er somewhere near where you live who would let you try it out.

 

Andrew

[mike t.]

Well, I can tell you that I *trialed* the lens recently and handheld it for youth soccer matches at a tournament and at regular league play over almost two weeks. I go about 230#, 6'3", and actually do weight train regularly at my advanced age. Is the lens heavy in this kind of use? Yes, for big 'ole me it is. After a relatively short period of time, I was wishing for a monopod. Is it a wonderful lens? Yes. it is. If the f/4 version would fit my needs, would I prefer to carry it? Yes, I would. The entire questions revolves around whether you need the f/2.8 and IS. If you do, buy the lens and buy a good monopod at the same time (it comes with a very nice collar). If you don't need the f/2.8 and IS, buy the f/4 and your walkaround shooting will be more enjoyable and more easily handheld.

 

By the way, I used the lens on an Elan 7N body.

[rodolfo_negrete]

I honestly do not see the relevance to this question.since you can always go to the canon website and find out how much it weights.

 

but more than anything if this is the lens you need to get the job done,your concern is irrelevant.

 

I mean when someone gets the $10,000.00 camera and has a job that justifys the cost the price will be irrelevant (would not you think?)

 

no offense just MPO.

[larry_underwood]

I agree with Rodolfo. If you need the lens, just put it on the camera, put it up to your eye, and shoot. You can certainly hand hold it, especially with the IS. It may be on my camera for three or four hours at a time (though certainly not up to my eye that whole time). I never think about how heavy it is, I'm just glad I have it.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> As I see it, you have 4 options:</p>

<p> Option 1: Get the 70-200/4. <br>

 

Option 2: Get the 70-200/2.8 IS and go to the gym :-) <br>

 

Option 3: Wait for the 70-200/4 IS.... <br>

 

Option 4: Get the 85/1.8 + 200/2.8. BTW, that is what I did.</p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

I have the non-IS version of the 2.8, I agree with the above posters. If you need that lens, then you need it. I am 5ft 7, of medium build and have hand held this lens for more than a couple of hours, obviously not up to my eye all the time, and the weight never bothered me. That's because Ive also carried a 75-300 usm lens around, and I appreciate WHY I'm carrying the extra weight.

 

I don't carry it everywhere I go, I always carry it when I need a fast telezoom lens though.

[quicksilver1]

I do have the tripod\camera bag and have no ntentions of putting the lens on the eye for 2 hours while watch the parade from the viewfnder :-)) and also the need of a telephoto lens.There is no single way of getting the ends cuz there are ofcouse other options ( for x. using primes..etc).

 

Reason I asked this was I remember going to Las egas with my Elan and 17-40 and 50mm 1.8. I clearly know that 17-40 couldn't be used all that much. That's why 70-200 f4 is not an option guys.

 

Having said that, I am going to NYC in 2 weeks on way to Philadelphia. Will stop by BH and checkout these on my own. But ofcourse I don't think I need to go to gymn :-))

 

Thanks a lot for the feeedback

Raj

[miketing]

We just sold our 70-200 2.8 IS cause of the weight factor detracts me from using it. It's

not so heavy that your hand trembles, but when shooting a one-day wedding, it does get

tiring. Basically, if you're not lazy, you can manage the weight. I don't weightlift, so any

adult male should be able to handle the lens just fine, even on a one-day wedding event.

 

I'm just lazy, and I don't really like how the lens perform, so that's another reason why we

sell it. The lens might be over-hyped. When I compare the images from it to the 85mm 1.8

"non L" lens, the 70-200 2.8 doesn't seem that sharp.

 

We might be getting the 135 f2 which seems super sharp for our "long" telephoto.

[rodolfo_negrete]

yep the 135/2 are the some of the finest lens.

 

how much do you want for those 70-200/2.8IS?

[patrick tom]

The 70-200 2.8 is is going to feel quite heavy relative to what

you have...if you use it a lot you'll eventually get use to it...

I just got the 70-200 4.0 at 200mm I can't hold it steady enough

to prevent the image from shaking...my worries even if you have the

the IS on you are still shaking the camera where the image is moving

unless you're able to hold it tripod-still (which maybe if I practice I could do it)...well if the image is shaking you will have some

distortion of some sort compared with just using a damn tripod and call it a day...but if you have no other choice but to hand hold...

go for it and have the baddest toy on the block...at the price you

can sell it online you can basically rent the thing for a few bucks

and then rid yourself of it if you hate it or don't need it...

[danny_lee2]

I was once in the Army, and when I went to basic they gave me a 5 pound hat and a M16 gun that weighted as much or more than as your camera and lens. I found to be very tired holding that sucker all day at first, but after a while, you dont even notice that you are holding it. Just give it time, your body will adjust.