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

[kris-bochenek]

I wouldn't mind heavy lens like 70-200 f/2.8, I like things that feel solid in my hands, that applies to tools, drink glasses and of course lenses. If it wasn't for my budget (I would like to stay married as long as possible) I'd buy70-200 f2.8 or 17-55 f/2.8, instead I had to sattle down for Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Maybe my thinking is wrong but heavy sturdy lenses look and feel right.

Just my .02

[aslavihervuori]

Yes. I feel fine with size and weight of 30/1.4 and 50/1.4. They are quite light and small, quite cheap and I really need large apertures often, when shooting dslr. For most of my shooting A650 is a better tool, but my next lens is perhaps 20/2.8 (oh I wish they updated it to 20/2.0!) or 85/1.8. I can live without zoom...

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

Congratulations on posting a question that has elicited so many responses! You've obviously struck an area of interest.

 

The one time equipment weight was an issue for me was when I experimented with a Pro-RL flash bracket.

 

http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=stroboframe&itemnum=310-700

 

Gee whiz, was that thing enormous! Pretty much fumbled every shot I tried to take with it attached, and only came away with a few keepers after I sheepishly put it away.

 

On the other hand, I recently read a post by a professional who seems to like it.

[g-man1]

Yes! See the leica and rangefinder forum -- one of the main attractions of the rangefinder is it's size and the size of the lenses (small).

[anson_ko]

I would like to have lighter smaller yet 24-70 f2.8 with same or better quality. As technology advances, it could be possible. Some ppl think the bigger it is, the better. To me, smaller/lighter the better providing IQ the same of better. WHen I am working on a paid customer, IQ outweights size/weight of the equipment. Casual shots, not really coz I am not going to do much editing.

[tal_marcu]

Tommy, do you work in Canon sales department ?

[Brad_]

>>> For example the Canon 17-55 to the Tamron 17-50. both are good but the Canon is probably a little better

 

Maybe for people who worry about lens sharpness and shoot eye vision charts and newspapers tacked on walls. But for people

that actually make photographs, it makes little difference.

 

I'll take much less weight and far less $$$ any day - and I compared both lenses over the counter.

 

The canon would not make me a better photographer.

[tdigi]

Tal, why do you say that? I am not promoting Canon. In the example I gave I was trying to say that most people who are

using a camera for walk around or travel would probably be happier with a smaller lighter lens over an L or high end big

lens. Most people are so quick to suggest a 17-55 or 24-70 or a 70-200 all of which are a lot to carry on a trip.

 

While I like the high end stuff overall quality I am starting to lean toward a lighter solution for travel and casual use.

[tdigi]

Just to be clear I am not promoting or ripping Canon. The reason this size issue even occurred to me was because I got a

tenba messenger bag to use for travel and I realize most of my gear and lenses ( 40D, 24-105, 70-200 2.8, 100 macro 50

1.4 ) wont all fit with flashes and accessories. I can probably get in 2 lenses and a flash.

 

So I am considering a hyperzoom or a G10 or some other option for when I travel.

 

Again if your working its different I am really just talking about the casual, street or vacation shooter

[anson_ko]

( 40D, 24-105, 70-200 2.8, 100 macro 50 1.4 ) wont all fit with flashes and accessories. I can probably get in 2 lenses and a flash.

 

or get a one lens solution XSI+18-200 IS? XSI has built in flash as well. Depends on how or where you want to take pics, for extreme conditions, you need extreme gears like in candle light , u need fast lens like f1.2 or 1.0 There is no one body, one lens can do it all : - ) law of physics applies.

[scott bean]

I didn't use to think much about the weight of my gear at all...but as I get older it gets more and more important!

 

I recently traded some f2.8 L lenses for their f4 cousins, mainly because of weight (I hike a lot). I should add that a deciding factor in this was that I almost never shot at f2.8 so I figured why carry that weight around in the bigger glass if I'm not using it. If I was using the 2.8, then I probably would have just put up with the extra weight.

[lenmalick]

You buy a lens because it does the job, not because of weight and size.

[gabriel_afana]

For me I originally bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It was smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. I do rave photography and am running around in crowds of tens of thousands of people for 8 hours at a time shooting 1,000+ photos/night. There was NO way I was gonna drag that huuuuge nikon lens.

 

HOWEVER, the Tamron lens could not stand up. I am on my second one and this one is falling apart. Those lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper for a reason...they are no professional quality - they are consumer-grade equipment. By no means am I a professional, but I sure do put my equipment to work.

 

So tomorrow I will be waiting by the door patiently for the FedEx truck to drop off my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. I dont want to crazy that huge lens around because it will be a workout....but I have too...I need the nikon build.

 

So here is an example of how I let size and price select the lens over quality and I ended up paying the price

[markonestudios]

Andre McNichols mentioned colour, which I think is very interesting, for me at least. I would really like to know why Canon doesn't make their 70-200Ls in black as well as white. In some parts of the world (mine included), you don't just whip out a white lens, it draws way too much attention, often of the wrong kind. This is actually a key reason why I plan to get a 70-300IS in lieu of a 70-200s. I am willing to trade off on optical quality for my own safety & security. Plus I get an extra 100mm of zoom with decent IQ to boot. I read that the white barrel has something to do with reflecting away light and therefore keeping the lens elements cooler. I'm not entirely convinced of that. If that's the case, why not make the focus and zoom rings white texturized rubber as well? Is (anyone from) Canon "listening"?

[chrisjb]

Mark, AFAIK the flourite is suscepticle to heat, Maybe needs a lil sunhat attachment :)

[jos__javier_vicente]

Well, I'm a snapshooter - not selling any picture, I just want to keep memories of my family and my days in the mountain.

 

Long time ago, I decided that my target was enjoying my routes, not carrying big stuff through beatiful landscapes. So what works for me is: keep it light and simple, whatever it is my camera or my skis. For sure, a minimum of quality is required - nothing is heavier than a useless piece of equipement. Although I use digital P&S for my hardest routes, I still prefer a DSLR as my main camera, but I strongly disagree with the modern trend high quality=big bulk. Not so long ago, in the film days, a set of 2-3 primes (e.g. 20, 50 and 135) delivered unsurpassed quality and were much more compact than the monster 2.8 zooms.

 

By the way, price is also an important factor - otherwise, I'd be shooting Leica rangefinders :-)

[pete_su]

My rule is, if it does not fit in a Domke 803 or "little bit smaller bag" then I don't need it. I'm too old and weak to carry around

20lbs of gear. I adjust what I shoot to the stuff I have.

[jennifer_spencer]

Weight factors into my camera body choice a lot more than my lens choice. I used a borrowed Hassy for a few

hours in a studio class, and I decided right then and there it was not the MF camera for me. My hands ached

using it and I was afraid I'd fumble it. I had my old Rollei TLR cleaned and repaired instead, and was happier

for it. I can carry that camera anywhere. Sometimes airport security gives me a hard time about the Rollei and

the MF film. Some of those folks have never seen an old TLR and they think it's a bomb decoy. I guess that's a

"shape" issue instead of size or weight.

 

As for the size of the lens, the "steal me" and discretion factors figure into it for me with my 35mm. The

weight hasn't been a factor for me with lenses, but I haven't bought one > 150mm. A large lens hood or a big eye

on the end of the lens is conspicuous. Sometimes being inconspicuous matters, especially in street photography

or just as a tourist. It's hard to get the shot if you are more worried about your pocket being picked during

focusing, or if the locals misunderstand your motives. I think the camera bag choice is also important if you

want to be discrete. I have been known to disassemble my SLR and carry it with 2 lenses in my purse. There's

almost no room for anything else that way, but it is handy when you have to walk through a ratty part of town,

say, in Marrakech. The little Domke bag is the only camera bag I've seen that allows the same discretion.

[John Crowe]

Absolutely do not care! I have some of the largest lenses available like a 200/2 and a 400/2.8. Whatever lens does what I want it to do, size is no issue.

[scott_ferris]

Mark Anthony,

 

The colour of the lens makes a big difference to its temperature when used in the sun. Just put one on a tripod

with a body and feel them both after 20 minutes in the sun, you would be convinced.

 

I have been a bit dismissive of a few comments on photo.net recently and the white lens complaint is another one

that always makes me laugh. I have used the 70-200 f2.8 in some pretty rough places and never had any real

concerns, maybe it is the way I do it but I never feel intimidated or intimidating. But why would you be using a

big white lens in close quarter situations? 70-200, the shortest white lens, is not the most appropriate for this

kind of work anyway. Besides it is very easy to get covers for them or to cover them up on the cheap, one friend

always tapes his new lenses up so he can take the tape off when he sells them in like new condition. It is such a

non-consideration it is funny.

 

Jennifer, I have walked through the ratty parts of Marrakesh with a 1VHS and 16-35 f2.8, nobody even looked at

me, I don't carry a bag or have stuff in my pockets, I carry the camera in my hand with the strap wrapped around

my wrist and have done for years, all around the world, nobody has ever tried to take it. I once had a guy eye up

a companions bag in the rattiest part of the Dominican Republic, so I took a photo of him, he ran off. I can

shoot from the hip, waist and over my head, I don't need to look through the viewfinder for street photography

but I almost always do, I am no photo guru but do think people worry about way too much and also situations they

will almost certainly never encounter. If you feel nervous you look it, nervous people become prey in ratty

places, few people take their cameras to truly ratty places.

 

Take care, Scott.

[jennifer_spencer]

Scott, different people have different defenses in different prey/predator situations. As a 5-foot tall woman

alone, it is possible I might need a different set of urban survival skills than you. Same is true with our

poster with the white lens who seems to be from Kenya. For me, blending into the environment has been a good

starting defense. I lived in a bad neighborhood for years, and I have traveled off the beaten path in many

countries - in general I agree with your assessment that it's best to be confident. But I think you have to make

allowances that your philosophy might not be enough for someone who is not you, physically. Not making myself a

target in any obvious way is one of my defenses. Camera gear that sticks out too much can be a problem. It is a

consideration when I am purchasing.

 

I was stalked by young teens for probably a quarter mile in that particular Marrakech situation, who kept eying

me and my purse, even trying to run past and bump me. I turned and gave them a firm "can I help you with

something?" in French, and a "hello" in Arabic, but they kept up the same treatment. I don't know if they were

only curious, but I got a thief vibe - they never spoke or made eye contact, but continued slinking, skirting and

reappearing. I never had any other trouble in Morocco. I am glad you didn't have any trouble.

[thomas_hardy1]

The only people I know who really talk about size and weight issues are a few men on rangefinderforum.com. I once

thought "how wimpy" until I compared how my neck felt after carrying a range-finder camera all day compared to a dslr with

a zoom lens.

[mwr]

Size and weight have always been an issue for me, and I'm not small or weak. My film SLR was an Olympus OM-1, and my DSLR is a Canon XSi. I love the combination of image quality and small and light, and didn't even consider one of the larger/heavier models. I also have small and/or light lenses, with the heaviest being the Canon 10-22mm (which to me doesn't really qualify and small or light, but it's worth it).

[yakim_peled1]

No.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[yakim_peled1]

No.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.