300D + L = Stable?

[chris dont worry about]

I am looking into upgrading my lens collection (having only standard lenses).

In the future I am thinking of upgrading to a better body, but for now I will

be using a 300d.

 

I have heard rumours that the lens mount on the 300d is too unstable to

support L lenses? Is this true?

By no means do I want to spend so much on L lenses and have the bayonet mount

on the lens or the camera damaged.

 

The lenses in question are -

 

16-35 2.8

24-70 2.8

70-200 2.8

 

I am not buying all of them, but these are the lenses in question and before

purchasing one of the lenses I would like to know that it is perfectly safe to

do so

 

Thank you in advance.

[denisgermain]

? where did you hear that?

 

It is not a problem... with heavier lenses you will learn to hold the lens not just the camera (for better stability)...

[chris dont worry about]

I've always preferred larger lenses due to the feeling of "snap shot" or "point and shoot" you get when using shorter lenses such as the 50mm...

 

I've always supported the lens, but I think my camera would sometimes be exposed to situations where the lens is hanging downwards (when not using the camera and hanging over shoulder or neck)...

 

I was just curious as to whether the 300d would support such treatment?

Or if anybody has had problems with the 300d + L in the past?

 

I'm not going to put the lens through its paces - I just wanted to see if it IS safe to couple the two just incase the situation occured.

[jcs56]

I read that a long time ago about a film Rebel body because the chasis and the bayonet where made from plastic... Im not sure how it is made now. You can use a heavy lenses in your body if you carry and manipulate the camera holding it by the lensses, especialy the large ones like the 70-200 (an excelent beast)

 

Regards JC- Mexico City

[denisgermain]

the body may be plastic but the bayonet is made of metal....

trust me it works just fine - My rebel has the 70-200 mounted on almost permanently or other "heavy" lenses

[neild]

<i>"I've always preferred larger lenses due to the feeling of "snap shot" or "point and shoot" you get when using shorter lenses such as the 50mm..."</i>

<p>

Does this mean that if they started selling a long & heavy 50mm or wide-angle lens that you might feel OK about using them? You seem to be limiting yourself for no good reason (worrying about the image <i>you</i> project to others - by looking like a snap-shooter - is not a good reason to avoid a lens!).

<p>

Of course, it's all up to you (beware, in case you start looking like all those guys with long lenses who don't know what they're doing - this image would be even worse that that of a snap-shooter I think!)

[wbowman]

I keep a 17-40L on my Digital Rebel (300D) and I haven't had any problems. If you want real

balance between a big lens and the lightweight body, consider buying the battery pack. The L

lens and battery pack make a perfectly balanced combo (if a bit heavy for something like

extensive travel).

[jim_mcdonald1]

As others have said, I've been using a 70-200 (though only the f/4 version) and a 17-40 on a 300D for three years without a hint of trouble. I sometimes support the lens but often travel over rough ground with the lenses unsupported. There really isn't a problem Chris.

[oceanphysics]

It's a non-issue. Glass that's big enough to warp a lens mount if the lens were hung from the camera comes with a tripod collar so that you don't have to hang the lens from the camera.

 

As far as carrying the combination around, you'll wind up supporting it by the larger and heavier piece anyway, which in the case of the 300d and the lenses listed will be the lens.

 

I probably wouldn't let the 70-200 f/2.8 combination dangle around my neck all day, but that would be uncomfortable anyway, and it probably wouldn't break even if I did.

[oceanphysics]

<i>I've always preferred larger lenses due to the feeling of "snap shot" or "point and shoot" you get when using shorter lenses such as the 50mm...</i>

<p>

Wow, that's amazingly lame.

[ryan mcgill - trm photo st]

I mount a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 to my 300D all the time. It is basically the same weight of the Canon verion. I have noticed some body "flexing", but this does not effect the body or lens. If you utilize proper handling, like holding the camera at the center of balance, you should not have any issues.

[chris dont worry about]

Thank you all for your speedy replies...

I now have extended confidence in purchasing such lenses without having to worry so much about damage.

 

 

"I've always preferred larger lenses due to the feeling of "snap shot" or "point and shoot" you get when using shorter lenses such as the 50mm... "

 

My concerns were mainly of the build of the camera and it's capacity to support larger lenses. But for those who chose to focus on the quote above, rather than my original question...

by no means was it intended to be a description of how I want to appear when holding a camera...definately not.

 

It's a comfort thing. I prefer larger lenses as the focus / zoom controls are generally more spaced out & I feel like I have more control over the camera

(Don't any of you feel weird holding a point-and-shoot digi that's a whopping whole inch?)

Lame? so be it.

[jim_mcdonald1]

Yes Chris, I too am uncomfortable with a small camera. I'm only typical height at 6 feet with an average frame but the 350D/XT was distinctly small in my hand. I regularly use a G6 and I genuinely struggle to control it with my stubby fingers.

[jws]

The biggest lens I've used on my 300d is the 100-400mm. The balance is not great but if you add the vertical grip the combo works fine. IMO better to spend money on lenses than on bodies.