Can a lens be too heavy?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by A_Lee, Mar 25, 2010.

  1. A_Lee

    A_Lee Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recently, I have been using my Canon 24-70 2.8L quite often because of its versatile focal range.
    The lens is great, but the only drawback is that it is on the heavy side ... it weighs in at 33.6 oz, which is hair over two pounds! By far the heaviest lens I have.

    Quite frequently when my camera is not in use, or in my hand, it is slung across my body with the neck strap, and the camera body with lens attached just hangs. I haven't been doing that with the 24-70 mounted because I am afraid it might be too heavy for the camera? Maybe I am not giving the sturdiness of the camera body (40D) sufficient credit? Should this be a concern for me [or, would this worry you, if you were me]? I know the camera mount where the lens comes in contact and locks to the body is strong but, I was just curious for some others feedback.

    Then again, I have seen some people with a Canon 70-200 2.8L IS mounted to a camera body slung over their shoulder without any worry at all. And the 70-200 2.8L IS weighs in at 44 oz. (or something like that).

    Thoughts always welcome!
     
  2. Ibn

    Ibn Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,548
    Likes Received:
    490
    Not a problem on the pro bodies, due to the metal in their mounts. On something like the 24-70mm, you should be okay. It's with the 70-200mm IS and heavier lenses that I would take a look at having the lens carry the weight of the body instead. When I hike w/300mm lens or longer, I carry the lens on the tripod/monopod and then hang the body off that instead. :p
     
  3. A_Lee

    A_Lee Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Eric, you're always super helpful!

    I can't say I have a pro body, but I I believe my 40D does have a metal mount? It's definitely not plastic, unless we're talking about different things?
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ibn

    Ibn Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,548
    Likes Received:
    490
    You're fine with that for the 24-70mm and also the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (just don't push down on it :p ). That's a metal mount body there, which is sturdy as heck.
     
  5. mpoletti

    mpoletti Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the Nikon 28-70mm 2.8 with the internal focusing. Its definitely not light as you stated, but after shooting it a couple of times, I have got used to the weight and have become very comfortable with it.
     
  6. A_Lee

    A_Lee Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    0
    schweet!
    Thanks Eric and Mark!
    Mark, don't you love that 2.8? :D
     
  7. mpoletti

    mpoletti Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its a sweet lens Anthony. I basically got the 28-70mm because its completely internal focusing. The 24-70 extends out when it focuses and I got an awesome deal through B&H so I couldnt pass it up.

    I was thinking of using it on a video shoot of the tank this weekend if I can get the time :)
     
  8. zepplock

    zepplock Guest

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heavy glass = less blurry pictures ;-)

    I have 35mm f/2 on my D90 most of the time. A very light combo.
     
  9. mpoletti

    mpoletti Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like your reasoning :D
     
  10. Raddogz

    Raddogz Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,600
    Likes Received:
    2
    I guess I must be a dork because I can't stand the weight of the lens plus cam. body. So I just hold the lens as I am walking so it's no quite so heavy just hanging off my neck.
     

Share This Page