EF 70-200 1:2.8 L too heavy for 400D/XTi lens mount?

[stein_andersen]

I "test drove" an EF 70-200 1:2.8 L USM and a 70-200/2.8 Sigma this weekend, and

while OK on my friend's 20D, my 400D/XTi body just seems to flimsy for these big

boys. Whenever I let go of the lens with my left hand, the body creaks and

twists (not much of course, but still...) I know I should always support the

lens and not just the body with such long "buckets", but it would be nice to

trust that the lens mount didn't break - sending the costly lens front first

into the pavement if I were to hold the camera with 70-200 hanging from the grip

or the shoilder strap.

 

So:

 

Am I correct in thinking the 400D just isn't built for this and should settle on

a 4L, or am I worrying needlessly. ...Or is this problem present on sturdier

bodys as well, but just not as noticeable on them?

 

Thanks again!

[DickArnold]

I have a three pound 100-400L mounted on a 400d this minute I have taken many pictures with it. I do use a battery grip to get a firmer hold on the camera with this lens and my 70-200 2.8L which also weighs about three pounds. Look at my gallery. There are lots of pictures taken on a 400d with these two lenses.

[stein_andersen]

I have the battery grip, but I thought the body seemd like it was ready to give in when holding the body/70-200 by the camera grip. It will propably work fine when I hold it properly, but I'd be afraid to hang it over my shoulder or carry it atround by the grip. ...And that happens, doesn't it?

[mark u]

There is no problem with even a 600mm f/4 hanging off the lens mount. However, it may be easier to manage using a monopod for reasons of balance.

[stein_andersen]

Sure? That's great. It just didn't look/feel right to me.

[pjmeade]

It's generally worth holding on to the 70-200 using the tripod/monopod plate. But yes, I think it way well feel a bit vulnerable hanging a heavy lens off the plastic body.

[sbrauchli]

I would not trust it. Keep the tripod collar on the lens and hold the lens/camera assembly from the collar. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OzYQ">I am having a similar issue with a 300 2.8 IS on a 5D</a>. I do not know what the 400 is made of, but the bodies of the 20/30/40D are very sturdy. I do not get any creaks even with this 8 lb lens.

[jason_hall4]

Any time a lens is supplied with a tripod collar, it is important that the lens supports the camera and not the other way around. That is to say when mounted on a tripod or monopod.

 

It would be OK to hold the camera by the grip when the lens hangs down by your side in a vertical fashion. However, when the lens come up in a horizontal position, the lens should be supported reguardless of the camera body used.

 

Jason

[g dan mitchell]

This "lens to heavy for the camera" bit is an old myth. In any case, when you use a

really large lens on any camera there is a point at which it simply easier to handle it by

the lens than by the body. The point where this happens will be different depending

upon the size/weight relationship between camera/lens.

[mendel_leisk]

"Am I correct in thinking the 400D just isn't built for this"

 

No, the camera size is immaterial. As long as the lens is compatible, it's compatible.

 

With the heavier lens the *camera* is just along for the ride, regardless of the body. When carrying a heavier lens you primarily carry the lens, *not* the body. Doing the opposite *will* risk damage.

[davyjo]

I now use a strap attached to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS tripod collar when walking around with it mounted to either my XT or 30D. No load on the camera.

 

I used to use just a loop of webbing around my neck and just hooked the tripod collar on the loop. It supported the lens/camera and I could instantly pull it out and use it unencumbered with a second strap. Not sure which method I prefer.

[DickArnold]

Stein. I have had my 70-200 2.8L 3 pound lens for twelve years or more. It has been used hand held for sports, newspaper and wedding photography on at least eight different Canon bodies. I am comfortable. If you are not don't buy the Rebel. Having had courses in materials failure, if you put enough stress on any Canon body it will break. In the absence of any real failure data or testing,one must rely on their gut. However my gut sends me no negative signals. I do use the collar on a tripod for both of my heavy lenses. I have carried the 70-200 up and down the sidelines at many football and soccer games as well as baseball, wrestling and now hand held at swimming meets. It works just fine with the 400d. Of course the 40d and the EOS 1 series have stronger bodies but I still hang these lenses over my should and walk around with them. Because they are so large, I usually partially carry them most of the time. When I shoot swimming barefoot on the deck I usually just carry the camera by the lens. I also use a monopod a lot because whether you carry them or use them they get damn heavy and I get arm weary. The monopod also makes for sharper pictures. I have never heard of an instance of a heavy lens breaking Rebel, but my experience is limited. Does anyone know of any instance of such? If there is I will take heed.

[stein_andersen]

Thanks. I already have the XTi/400D body, and in fact I am a mechanical engineer with quite a bit of stress analysis experience. ;)

 

I guess I'll be OK, then. I might just have to find another way of lugging the camera and 200mm around than slung across my shoulder.

[stein_andersen]

Let's say i were to go for a hike with the 400D and 70-200/2.8. What would be the best way to carry it when not in the bag? Holding it with both hands all the time seems very unpractical.

 

...Besides: I don't think it will fit in my bag with the 200 attached. ;)

[jeff_higdon]

"Whenever I let go of the lens with my left hand, the body creaks and twists."

 

Ouch! That lines reads like scrtaching your fingernails across the chalkboard!

 

I have an Xti and have borrowed and rented the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS a few times. Please do not let its size and weight deter you from purchasing or using it with your 400D. It's a wonderful lens and, as a non-pro, I have had very, very satisfying results with it.

 

Two suggestions. Buy a bigger bag. The typical backpack type works fine with the lens attached to the 400D/Xti. If I were hiking (and I have not done that for quite a while), I'd keep it in the bag when not using it for long stretches of time. Second, no, it's not a two handed deal - but it certainly is when shooting handheld. I would never, ever shoot with the 70-200 2.8 IS with one hand. The suggestions above about slinging it over your shoulder with the lens pointed down or holding the lens with one hand and letting the camera go for a ride are good advice.

 

You will love that lens. And it will build muscle.

[sbrauchli]

I have a ThinkTank Glass Taxi which will hold my 300 2.8 IS (hood inverted) with the 5D attached, or the 40D with the 70-200 2.8 IS with the lens hood extended. I use it as a backpack with one of these rigs in it and will have the other around my neck, while holding the lens from the tripod collar. The 70-200 is almost a featherweight compared to the 300, so it is around my neck most of the time. This set-up has definitely toned my arms, but in my opinion it is worth it. Why have good glass if you don't use it? I am considering building some kind of shoulder harness so I can hook the tripod collar onto it to take some of the weight off my arms on longer trips.

[belman]

I just purchased this strap for my 40D/70-200 2.8 IS combo. It works great and allows me to carry a second body. The weight is supported by the collar, not the body. Check out the website. http://www.blackrapid.com/rs1.php

[jason_hall4]

>>>"Let's say i were to go for a hike with the 400D and 70-200/2.8. What would be the best way to carry it when not in the bag? Holding it with both hands all the time seems very unpractical."<<<

 

I think David has the best solution to your exact question.

 

>>>"I now use a strap attached to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS tripod collar when walking around with it mounted to either my XT or 30D. No load on the camera.

 

I used to use just a loop of webbing around my neck and just hooked the tripod collar on the loop. It supported the lens/camera and I could instantly pull it out and use it unencumbered with a second strap."<<<

 

I have seen straps made for the tripod ring of large lens. They are just like the camera strap, except they connect to the tripod collar. I saw one for sale on Ebay once but have yet to see them in retail stores...but then again I have not looked is good long while.

 

I sort of like Davids Idea of just useing a loop made of webbing to "hook" the collar foot onto. You would still need to keep you hand on the camera, but the strap would carry the weight. It does seem it would be easy to ready the camera to shoot.

 

Jason

[phyrpowr]

A little late to this thread, but you gotta figure that if this were a REAL problem, there would be plenty of reports here, on Fred Miranda, DPReview, etc., and we don't see them.

[colinsouthern]

The subtle difference is with lenses that size, you don't so much mount the lens on the camera - you mount the camera on the lens, and then balance the whole rig by supporting the 70-200 under the balance point. Although the mount will tolerate the weight of a 70-200/2.8 if you're just holding the camera (horizontal), personally, I was always a bit uncomfortable with the arrangement - I certainly wouldn't do that with anything bigger.

 

Just reiterating though that if you're supporting the lens then there's no limit - you could quite happily mount an EF1200 with stacked 1.4 & 2.0 teleconverters on a 400D.

[stein_andersen]

Thanks, everybody!

 

That blackrapid R-strap seems like a great solution. I guess I can start looking at 2.8 lenses again, then. :)

 

I can get a good used EF 70-200L for less than a new Sigma 2.8 or Canon 4L IS, so I guess thet's what I'm aiming for. The 4L non-IS is the cheap option, and the 2.8 L IS USM is too expensive and out of the question.

 

Good plan?

[DickArnold]

Judging from te twelve year, high use service life of my 70-200L used in good condition with no fungus is a good choice.

[sbrauchli]

I would get the 70-200 2.8 IS L. In addition to the non-IS version you get weather-sealing and IS which has allowed me to take many shots at low light that would otherwise been blurred. Especially if you are not going to be buying lots of lenses, get the best there is. My 2 cents.

[stein_andersen]

There is quite a price jump from the 2.8 L USM to the 2.8 L IS USM. Not many IS ones to be found used either.

[stein_andersen]

Isn't the 2.8 L USM weather sealed, btw?