Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,534   Posts: 1,544,065   Online: 1121
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Get a 50/1.4 and use your feet.

  2. #12
    Wade D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jamul, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    884
    Images
    3
    I have tons (pounds?) of lenses for my SRT 201 but the one that stays on the camera the most is my 35/1.8 MC Rokkor. Darned sharp lens!

  3. #13
    flatulent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,286
    I had the same problem. I tossed the power booster and replaced it with the battery pack. I sold off the 70-200 2.8, and don't miss it. Both teleconverters are in their boxes, gathering dust on a shelf. I'm down to the 1V, 16-35, and 24-70. If I think I'm going to need a longer lens for something, I grab my T90 bag with the 80-200L, or the XD-11 bag with the 70-200. I have thought about adding the 300 f/4L; any gap I might notice between 70mm and 300mm can be covered by moving in closer if possible. I am much happier since I got out of the mindset of having every mm covered, and now simply make do with the gear I have on hand.
    Fred Latchaw
    Seattle WA


    I am beginning to resent being referred to as 'half-fast'.
    Whatever that's supposed to mean.

  4. #14
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,523
    Images
    28
    Im currently carting around my -full size- tripod in tripod bag, with light stand jammed in there as well, 30D with a 50mm and 200mm primes (left the EOS film camera + 12-24 at home), RB67 PRoS, 65mm C, 180mm C, about 30 rolls of 120, 2 flashes, batteries, chargers etc jammed in my backpack.

    Needless to say I didnt bring clothes as they werent important :P I bought some when I got up to where i was staying, and am now carryign my dirty clothes in a plastic shopping bag. and re-wearing Day 1's clothes after hand washing them in plain water :P

    Ive carried my 4x5" on top of this once >.<

    Pays to be 24 :P

  5. #15
    flatulent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,286
    Of course, the other option is to divide up all your gear into two bags and have your wife carry the heavy one.

    Can you tell I'm not married?
    Fred Latchaw
    Seattle WA


    I am beginning to resent being referred to as 'half-fast'.
    Whatever that's supposed to mean.

  6. #16
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    One of the main features of the Novoflex lenses is that they're designed *not* to need a tripod....
    Do you have the shoulder stock for them? If not, get one!
    (Yes, adds some weight, but far less than a decent tripod).

    A good 180 or 200mm f/4.0 are usually fantastic sharp and light lenses.

    Unless you really need the full range of your zooms, a few well-chosen primes will save you a lot of weight.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  7. #17
    kauffman v36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Images
    11
    without going off topic, im going to say that you need to decide how much quality you are willing to lose in the telephoto range in order to reduce weight. the 150-500 is def. not the best lens but the canon 100-400 is not LEAPS & BOUNDS ahead of it optically. any lens with that much magnification is going to suffer IQ wise. IQ or weight is the question, you cannot have the absolute best of both. id still sell the 24-105 f4, i had one for a couple of months and it just never saw any use, i already reached for primes instead.

  8. #18
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    You're one of the extremely small few that think the 24-105L is "not that great of a lens". It is in fact an excellent lens and one of Canon's best L zooms. I wonder if you're referrint to the non-L 28-105, which is a terrible lens.
    I myself as an owner of the 24-105 can say it is acceptable, but it could be better. But my Leica M and lenses simply declass such a lens. Of course, they don't fit an EOS, of course, they lack AF and IS, and they are not a 3-in-1 lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    Those Sigma's you mentioned, especially the 150-500 are absolutely one of the worse lenses ever made. Complete dogs! Zoom lenses with such a wide focal range, and of any make and model are nearly all dogs....too heavily compromised in order to support such a wide focal range.
    That's right. There is an amazing website where you can really compare sharpness of many lenses for the EOS system. Finding the dogs is easy, there is no escape, and that Sigma lens barks loud:

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...=0&FLI=3&API=0

    Apart from that, it's big and heavy, has a below-average AF and no stabilizer.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    As to the poster, I have the 1v with the booster too, and all the L zooms 16-35L up to 100-400L and I really don't see weight as a problem. Go to the gym and build upper body strength, seriously.
    It's not the strength or endurance. The problem is called backache, my MD says I pay the price for using shoulder bags with too much gear since decades. My "therapy": belt bag, back exercises, jettison some gear.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    I have many L zooms, but I prefert shooting with primes....I would suggest these: 35L, 85mm F1.8, 135L, 200L....these four are most excellent, and none of them weigh that much, nor are that big.
    These are great lenses. The 35L is much better than the 2/35, but weighs 580g alone. The 85 is wonderful, but it weighs another 425g, both together: 1kg. The 24-105 weighs 670g. So, that is not my strategy, but I envy you for these lenses :-)

    Time for some maths:
    The 135 (750g)
    plus a 300mm f/4.0 IS (1190g)
    1.4x Extender (220g)
    = 2160g
    might be a nice and sharp replacement for my
    70-200/2.8 (1310g)
    1.4x Extender (220g)
    Novoflex 400/5.6 (1700g)
    = 3230g

    Not bad.
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

  9. #19
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    Weight belongs in a backpack.
    When I go on track with my EOS-System I carry:
    EOS 3 (or 2 EOS50 if I think I need a backup)
    Tamron 28-75/2.8
    EF 70-200/4L.
    Thats enough for my needs and sums up to 2240 grams. Sometimes less is more.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,276
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    Get a 50/1.4 and use your feet.
    If you don't need the wide apertures, the old-school 50/2.5 macro might actually be a better lens by some accounts. I've never sprung for the 50/1.4, but the 50/2.5 smokes the 50/1.8 (itself not a bad lens) like the proverbial cheap cigar for general use. Admittedly, the autofocus motor sounds like a rock crusher.

    Put me down as another believer in primes. Without getting into specific lens choices, I'd probably try walking around with a 50mm and something around 200mm, shoot a few rolls that way, and see if there's anything you feel you're missing---if so, fill in the gap with a third prime.

    Of course there are some terrific zoom lenses, but they're heavy, and by definition they involve spending some of your money on mechanics rather than optics. With a few exceptions like sports, my feeling is that primes work out better when all is said and done.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin