p.2 #1 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
We traveled Russia and Scandinavia this year. We did a lot of river boat tours in these countries. My 70-300L IS was the perfect telezoom for these scenarios.
I'm glad I chose to bring this lens over my 70-200 F4 IS...
p.2 #2 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I would say upgrade to the f/4 IS. Best of both worlds. It has amazing IQ, super light ( I have slipped mine in a deep jacket pocket while walking and the IS helps a ton in low light. Just food for though, plus it saves you 1k over the 2.8 IS II...
p.2 #3 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Kohala wrote:
My wife and I travel throughout the world. I was thinking of selling my 70-200 f4L, which is very light, and purchasing of the new new 70-200 2.8L lens. But this lens weighs 1490 grams, which is 3 lbs 4oz. I have a 1ds Mark III camera. Is this lens too heavy as a walk-around lens?
Thanks,
Dennis
It all depends. Sometimes on vacation you are running around all day long day after day doing so many things having to drag a heavy cam around can get tiresome. You can always get into better shape, but then you could also do even more, longer, more strenuous thing all day long and be back in the same boat.
Ignoring that, if you end up say stopping at cafe or whatever for lunch/dinner it can be a drag to have such a lens like that that you can't slip away conveniently.
It all depends on you and what you plan to do really though.
I've ended up with the 70-300L IS for this sort of thing and as a primary general FF lens.
p.2 #7 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Everyone is different. I think the 70-200 F4LIS really is the sweet spot for a general travel telephoto lens, its F4, its not too big/heavy and the IS comes in useful. I think a major factor you also have to consider is what is the purpose of your trip ? If a big part of the trip is photography then by all means make sure you have the kit that will get you the shot otherwise less is more. I made the mistake of travelling a few years ago with 2 zooms and 3 primes and its not something i will do again. Funny enough i then did a trip and took jut P&S and i was kicking myself for not having the DSLR with me. So the compromise for me is DSLR & 2 lens max.
p.2 #9 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
One day I was shooting with my 500mm f4 IS, handheld, for an extended period of time.
At one time, I decided to mount the 70-200 2.8IS II.
It felt like a kit lens. No exaggeration.
Everything is relative.
No one can answer that for you.
You will get all kind of different replies.
How old are you?
Male or female?
Body weight? Height?
Do you have some kind of injury or disability?
What do you plan on using it for?
It all matters. Weight is relative.
How long will you carry it and handhold it also matters. For a few seconds? For 6 straight hours?
All relative.
I am 34, 5'8, 200 pounds.
I have a bad back, tendinitis on a wrist and both elbows. The hip has seen better days. Both knees are busted.
Yet, I have never, ever felt the 70-200 2.8ISII or the 100-400L were heavy, no matter for how long I use or carry them.
p.2 #11 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Any of the 2.8 tele zooms are heavy. I find my 80-200 only too heavy when not in use. When I look at the images it gives it seems to get an awful lot lighter.
That said I did take a 1Dmk2 + 24-105 & 80-200 out for the day into London , it was fine while using and carrying around in hand but on the back it's was a tad too much.
p.2 #12 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Kohala wrote:
My wife and I travel throughout the world. I was thinking of selling my 70-200 f4L, which is very light, and purchasing of the new new 70-200 2.8L lens. But this lens weighs 1490 grams, which is 3 lbs 4oz. I have a 1ds Mark III camera. Is this lens too heavy as a walk-around lens?
I feel that you really need to think about how you'll use such a lens, what it does and does not gain for you, what alternatives you might have.
Yes, the f/2.8 70-200mm F2.8 IS is reportedly a dynamite lens - excellent in just about every way. However, the f/4 70-200mm IS is also an outstanding performer. (So are the non-IS versions of both lenses.) While it is possible to describe some difference among them on the basis of test bench measured performance and careful pixel peeping... all of them produce really excellent results.
A simple way to frame this might be to ask what objective advantages you'll see from the f/2.8 lens versus what costs there are to using it for the kind of photography you will do. Will you see any differences in the quality of your photographs? Unlikely. The f/4 lenses are very sharp optics. I have shot the non-IS f/4 for some time and I currently own the IS version of the same lens, and the IQ is such that I can reliably produce very large prints. (I print in-house to 24 x 36 inches.) Any image quality differences that can be measured are almost completely impossible to see even in quite large prints. If you don't regularly make such large prints - or of you always shoot hand-held, etc. - then the promise of better image quality is almost certain to be unrealized in any visible way.
What about the additional stop on the f/2.8 lens. This could be an advantage in some marginal lighting situations - those in which f/4 is not quite enough but one stop larger at f/2.8 is. (It won't be any advantage in this regard in the larger number of situations in which either both will work or neither will.) So, the additional single stop, while potentially of some use, can be balanced against the price and weight/bulk difference. You'll have to play that one out for yourself! (Keep in mind that another alternative can be to carry one or two small non-L primes for those situations in which really large apertures are useful, say for very small DOF. The cost and bulk/weight might be about the same.)
To those who will state, often in somewhat macho terms, that the weight of the f/2.8 lens isn't that much, consider that its weight/bulk is typically only one element in the total load that one carries. For example, I do a lot of backpacking photography. I carry one of the f/4 zooms. One might argue the the weight difference between the lenses is small. However, it is part of a difference in the weigh of my overall kit that is not small at all - by the time I apply the "lighter" philosophy to three lenses, my tripod, and my ballhead... it adds up to something quite significant when I'm schlepping a full pack across a 12,000' pass in the middle of a weeklong trip!
Lc
When is the f/2.8 lens a fine choice? Certainly when you do a lot of low light handheld work, cannot afford to shift to primes when you need a significantly larger aperture, and when weight and portability are less of a concern. It is a great lens for, say, wedding and event photography, vehicle supported landscape and nature work, and so on.
p.2 #13 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I have the f2.8 and I admit its heavy and definitely not a travel around in backpack lens even though I am a guy and pretty athletic too. Even worse is the looks you draw on you when you whip that thing out.
p.2 #15 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
All I have to say is that since getting the 2.8II zoom, I have never put the f/4 IS on the camera. Yeah, it's big and heavy, but it's also the best zoom lens in that range ever made. There's a tangible difference in images shot with it that you can easily see but is more difficult to describe. I keep the other lens only as a backup should I need it.
p.2 #18 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I carry my 70-200 IS and now 70-200 IS II mounted on my camera all the time when traveling. As a back up in my bag I have my 24-105 but the one that is mostly on the camera is the 70-200.
p.2 #19 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I tend to get used to whatever lens I am using. I have walked around with my 200 f2 but I was doing work. I just don't like the size so for travel, though I don't have one, I would prefer the f4 version.
