Holy wow, that is bigger than I thought

Battou · Oct 4, 2009

I was out at the Falling Leaves festavel yesterday here in town when I catch out of the corner of my eye another photographer. Now I've seen this guy before but he always seemed to toddle off before I could get the chance to talk to him. What catches my attention is the fact he has a lens that looks comperable to mine maybe a touch shorter. I finally reached out and grabbed him yesterday and said "I have to ask, what size?"....(Truth be told I already read the lens and knew it to be a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX, but he did not need to know that)....Anyway, long story short that friggin thin is huge. He started to talk about his wanting to get into some three and four hundred mm ranges for sports and what not. Before he could finish I already had my Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 out of the bag and holding it up to his side by side. With his hood on the lens was less than half an inch shorter than my 400mm prime with out the hood.

No wonder all them digital shooters are all up and up about straps and weight...your lenses are all on enzyte. that's pretty bad when a zoom half the focal leingth of my prime lens makes me feel all shrivled up and small :evil:

KmH · Oct 5, 2009

Is the Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 a mirror lens?

Lyncca · Oct 5, 2009

Yea, the whole weight thing concerns me with the high end lenses. I honestly don't think I could shoot a whole wedding carrying a 70-200 lens. Typically the team I shoot with, we let the guy shoot with that heavy thing!

henkelphoto · Oct 5, 2009

I was just talking with a former colleague of mine from our newspaper shooting days. He's just getting into digital after spending all his income raising and educating two kids, who are now both working.

I mentioned to him how heavy my 70-200, 24-70 and 12-24 are. He reminded me that back then (80s), my camera bag held two Canon F1n bodies with motor drives, a flash unit with external battery, a 20 2.8, 35 2.0, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 2.5, 200 2.8 and a 300 5.6 as well as 20 or so rolls of assorted film. I agreed that the weight was probably about the same. What was different was that we were 30 years younger :lmao:

Jerry

NateWagner · Oct 5, 2009

Although, primes do tend to be quite a bit lighter. I know the Canon 200 2.8 is only 1.6 pounds whereas the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is right around twice as big at about 3 pounds.

Edit: also, the Canon 400 5.6 almost identical to the canon 70-200 2.8 in weight.

Derrel · Oct 5, 2009

Similar equipment for me in the mid-1980's was a medium-large Tamrac camera bag with Nikon F3HP + MD-4 and either an FE-2 or FM with MD-12, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 50mm f/2. 85 f/2, 105/2.5, 135/2.8, 200mm f/3.5, Minolta Auto-Meter III-F, Vivitar 285HV flash. Total weight, 18.5 pounds for my normal everyday assignment bag, weighed on my fishing scale, the venerable De-Liar that's been made for so many decades.

Lenses then were MUCH smaller in many instances than they are today. The 85mm f/2 Nikon Ai lens was very small--about the size of a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Today's 85mm 1.8 is significantly larger than the older 85mm f/2.

The funny thing though--in 1987 my roommate was working very diligently to become a fashion photographer,and was well on his way. He ordered what was then the "hot,new thing" among top NYC fashion profesionals--the new Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED Zoom~Nikkor. Sight unseen. Cost as I recall was $1899, a princely sum back then. When it arrived, we unboxed it and he was absolutely devastated, just crushed, to see how HUGE it was. By huge I mean a 95mm front filter,and a BIG, FAT, STRAIGHT barrel that resembled a 2-liter pop bottle, and a weight of about four and a half pounds! Think 300/2.8, only fatter all the way from the lens mount to the filter threads.

eBay.com.my: Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AIS ED Zoom-Nikkor MF Lens RARE (item 190272897566 end time Nov 05, 2009 00:27:18 MYT)

Antithesis · Oct 5, 2009

The Sigma 70-200 is actually pretty short as compared to some of the other 70-200's out there. I know the Nikon 80-200 AF-S is quite a bit larger and heavier. Back when I used to use my 70-200 F2.8L pretty often, I strongly considered going to the F4L to shed some weight. While not as heavy as the IS model, that thing was a workout. On a gripped 5D, we're talking about a heavy ass camera. My wrists and forearm muscles would be really sore after shooting all day.