I have the old version. I find that shooting with the lens is not a problem. But carrying the lens in my shoulder bag, along with the body, two other lenses, flash, batteries, accessories, etc. can be tiring (or simply annoying, when it slides off my shoulder). If you use a backpack, it's probably not as much of an issue, but I prefer a shoulder bag, even with its disadvantages.
It is heavy (I have the 80-200 afs), but handholding is easy. Just pay attention to shutterspeed (However the 70-200 makes 1/13 shots possible....). No need for a tripod.
I often walk around with a sling-bag (Tamrac Velocity 9x) loaded with one body (either D700 or D300) the 14-24 mm, 24-70 mm, 70-200 VR, and sometimes a SB-900. The load can get tiresome after a several hours, but it's worth the trouble to me (more weight on one shoulder, but quick and easy access to gear).
I never shoot the 70-200 VR with a monopod, and rarely shoot it on a tripod.
It's definitely a hand-holder, but it's getting towards the upper end of the kind of lenses you can use all day. Only mad people use a monopod with it (seriously).
The overall impression from It sort of depends on what you are mounting it on. If on a D3 or one of the big-body pro models, it's a good balance, slightly ill-balanced on something smaller, even with a grip, but still nice. It feels awkward to me on anything without a grip. As you go down the range, it gets proportionally rather big. I feel happy with it on my D3 hanging off my shoulder, but I'd be a bit concerned with it hanging off anything smaller than a D90--I get the impression it would pull the mount off, but that's probably not going to happen.
Anyway, many people carry them round all day, I feel happy enough with a camera on each shoulder, one with a 70-200, the other with a wide 2.8 of some kind. You probably want a decent strap on the camera to bring down the impact of the weight on your shoulders.
Thats a relative question that only you can answer yourself. Its about 4lbs, and I personally find it quite easy to handhold, but I do this for a living, and consider myself to be in reasonable shape, so while its fine for me, and plenty of other people, as most do handhold it, that doesn't mean there arent others who find it difficult for whatever reason.
By the same token, even though I haul around about a 40lb when on assignment if I'm bringing some longer glass, I don't like to carry a 70-200 when hiking or traveling due to its weight.
Makes the bag heavier than I'd like and I instead carry a 70-300 VR which is half the weight, or my new m4/3rds system which is lighter still.
Its not an issue if I can or can't physically carry it, but rather that I don't want to. Fine for work but not for pleasure.
An analogy might be the dress shoes I'd wear as a manager at work certainly I don't mind wearing as we have an expected standard of dress, however, for my own personal time I'll instead prefer tennis shoes as they are more comfortable.
So remember, its not an issue of if you can handhold it, as you probably could, but rather will you want to. Will the lens get used or will you leave it behind because you don't like the weight in your bag all day ?
hjanssen wrote:
If it is not a handheld lens, what's the use of VRII
VR works great on a monopod
VR helps prevent the high frequency vibrations and the monopod helps prevent the low frequency vibrations. You can get razor sharp shots at very low shutter speeds and still be quite mobile. Works awesome for doing ambient wedding shots during candle lighting ceremony etc where tripod doesn't work and the shutter speeds are excessively long
It's a perfectly handholdable lens. But if you are not in shape, it's not. It also depends on the body you're using it on, on the pro bodies the balance is much better.
It's definitely a hand-holder, but it's getting towards the upper end of the kind of lenses you can use all day. Only mad people use a monopod with it (seriously).
********
Can you explain why a monopod is not a good idea for this lens? I ordered mine in August, hopefully will arrive by Dec.
Everything is relative I suppose, but I would have no worries carrying the 70-200 around all day long. It's definitely a lightweight compared to some of the longer tele's like the 300/400/500/600 and 200-400 VR's. And I carry the 300 around sometimes without a monopod. I'm also 6'1" / 220, so I'm sure that might make some difference.
SHVv wrote:
It's definitely a hand-holder, but it's getting towards the upper end of the kind of lenses you can use all day. Only mad people use a monopod with it (seriously).
********
Can you explain why a monopod is not a good idea for this lens? I ordered mine in August, hopefully will arrive by Dec.
Steve
Because it limits your movement with your camera. You put a lens you can't hold steady on a monopod, I'm pretty sure most people would be able to use a 70-200 for more than a half hour without any fatigue. I use it to shoot either weddings or sports, I wouldn't use a monopod for a wedding, unless the church was abysmally dark and I was stuck in the back. And for sports I usually keep a 300 or 400 on a pod, and the 70-200 on a second body around my neck.
The only lenses not hand holdable are monsters like 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 and 600 f/4.
I have tried my 500 f4 with just my hand and it's doable inside... with flash... with a static object... and it's really fun taking close ups of the fridge from across the room, but when a lens gets to be a certain size (where you don't care if you framed the shot correctly in the view finder, all you care about is not letting the heavy lens fall and cost you thousands of dollars) then I say it's not hand holdable. The 70-200, 300 f4, and the 200 f2 (though I haven't shot with it myself) are hand holdable. Just tuck that elbow into your gut, make sure the shutter speed is fast enough, and shoot.
I am a senior citizen and ofter use the Nikon with the 70-200 zoom (a bit lighter than the Canon) and a 1Ds III with the 200 F2.0 for many hours. Monopods limit your mobility and framing angle. Kids, you have to suffer for your art.
fusiongt wrote:
The only lenses not hand holdable are monsters like 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 and 600 f/4.
Depends on the kind of shooting you do. I do a lot of airshows and aviation, and if you're willing to put a little effort into it, then the 200-400/4, 300/2.8, and 500/4 are all still definitely handholdable... because handheld is the only way to go for this kind of shooting.
SoundHound wrote:
I am a senior citizen and ofter use the Nikon with the 70-200 zoom (a bit lighter than the Canon) and a 1Ds III with the 200 F2.0 for many hours. Monopods limit your mobility and framing angle. Kids, you have to suffer for your art.
Depends if its "art" or "work" for one thing. I'd handhold my 400 2.8 for short periods, such as downcourt shots at a basketball game, but when I'm doing an all day cheer, wrestling or marathon, I'll put even the 70-200 on a monopod.
Theres no need to make the job harder on yourself holding a lens, even a lighter one, up to your eye unsupported for 3-4 hours straight when your shooting 3000 marathon competitors as they cross the finish line for example.
If your don't have to be mobile, and your subject is on the same level you are, there is no reason to make the job any harder than it needs to be. After a half hour of literally non stop athletes running pass, my arms and back start to get fatigued and when that happens you can't do as good of job with the rest of the event.
Work smarter, not harder as they say. A monopod is a tool, just like a tripod, and there is a time and place for one
