Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
end

Archive 2012 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

eskimochaos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

The 70-200mm IS Mark II comes with a Tripod foot as I'd imagine the moment arm created on the mount is quite substantial. However, after watching a professional sporting event or two, it seems the professionals run around leaving the body and lens hanging by the neck strap.

Has anyone noticed any detrimental effects from doing so? Am I crazy?

Call me OCD.

-Will

Feb 01, 2012 at 12:45 AM

rsk7
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

I have a 5D and I feel a little flex around the mount with that lens. As much as possible I support the lens with a hand when I have the camera dangling from a neck strap. Just makes me feel better.

Feb 01, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Photon
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

It can be very detrimental to one's neck, but the mounts on the lens and a 1 series body can take it when the lens is pointed more or less downward.
I've allowed a body with heavy lens to hang from a shoulder (UpStrap) with never any problems, but for the most part I try to support the combination with a hand near the COG, which in this case is of course the tripod foot.

Just don't put your 70-200 on a Rebel and hold it in shooting position by the body only!

Feb 01, 2012 at 12:50 AM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

I carried an 80-200/2.8 around my neck for years.

EBH

Feb 01, 2012 at 12:58 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

I knew someone that dangled a 500mm f/4.0 lens on his 5D Mark II. The lens mount on the body was tweaked, needless to say. Canon replaced it for free. The guy should remain nameless

. A 1D series body should be able to handle the 70-200mm f/2.8 but a 500mm f/4.0 lens would be tough, let alone a 5D Mark II body.

Feb 01, 2012 at 01:01 AM

eskimochaos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

AGeoJO wrote:
I knew someone that dangled a 500mm f/4.0 lens on his 5D Mark II. The lens mount on the body was tweaked, needless to say. Canon replaced it for free. The guy should remain nameless

. A 1D series body should be able to handle the 70-200mm f/2.8 but a 500mm f/4.0 lens would be tough, let alone a 5D Mark II body.

Seems that guy still has his 5D2

Feb 01, 2012 at 01:02 AM

msalvetti
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

The 70-200IS II spends all winter on my 7D. I took the foot off as soon as I got the lens, and I don't think it has ever been back on.

I dangle the body with lens off my neck, off my shoulder, or in one hand by the grip/hand strap with the lens unsupported. I don't even think about it. I usually do the same thing with the 100-400 too. Never had any problems operating this way, be it on a 10D, 30D, 40D, and now the 7D.

I wouldn't worry about it, at least on a magnesium body camera.

Mark

Feb 01, 2012 at 01:53 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

No worries. Canon puts strap lugs on the lenses that they don't want supported by a strap connected to the body. The 70-200/2.8L IS II doesn't have any strap lugs. The tripod mount ring is to mount the lens on a tripod, that's all.

Feb 01, 2012 at 02:06 AM

kirry007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

I do it in the field, all the time. A high quality strap like Op-Tech, (diagonally across the torso) minus the tripod collar on the lens does the trick. All this, with another Supertele lens + camera combo in hand... I keep getting stronger....as a side effect.

Feb 01, 2012 at 05:35 AM

Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

It won't be much of an issue around the neck. (other than to your neck

)

On a tripod your most likely to have the rig level , so this will put most force on the mount. But round you neck the weight of the lens will pull the rig down, this will have much less force on the mount.

Also on a tripod the body could be Locked solid (on the head) so any slight knock on the end of the lens (being quite long) will exert quite alot of force on the mount. Hung round you neck the body won't be solid as the straps will act as a shock absorber.

I carry my 80-200 like this all the time , although I tend not to hang around the neck but over the shoulder is much more comfortable.

Feb 01, 2012 at 08:13 AM

kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Bad to "dangle" a 70-200 II from the body

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
so this will put most force on the mount.

It won't necessarily put more force on the mount. Gravity is always pulling on the lens which, in turn, is always pulling on the mount.

Rather, having the lens perpendicular to the direction of gravity will apply more torque to the mount. It's also a big lens, so the ability to bump into it is greater, which could also apply even more torque to the mount.

That being said, has anyone used a collar-less 70-200 or 80-200 on a tripod or monopod?

Feb 01, 2012 at 04:57 PM

end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell end