Holy wow, that is bigger than I thought

Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Battou, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. Battou

    Battou No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    7,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Slapamonkey, New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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:
     
  2. KmH

    KmH Helping photographers learn to fish Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    38,229
    Likes Received:
    5,005
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Is the Vivitar 400mm f/5.6 a mirror lens?
     
  3. Lyncca

    Lyncca TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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!
     
  4. henkelphoto

    henkelphoto TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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
     
  5. NateWagner

    NateWagner TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  6. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,796
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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)
     
  7. Antithesis

    Antithesis No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Caribbean
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  8. Battou

    Battou No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    7,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Slapamonkey, New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    [​IMG]

    No, through and through supertelephoto glass.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
fishing de-liar
,

vivitar 400mm

,

vivitar 400mm f 5.6

,

vivitar 400mm f/5.6

,
vivitar 400mm f/5.6 ai