Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,990   Posts: 1,524,171   Online: 1057
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37
  1. #1
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57

    How to lose weight as an EOS owner

    My camera bag is always too heavy... well, not the bag itself...

    When I need to use an SLR instead of my beloved M6 I use this:

    - a Canon EOS 1v with a Powerbooster E2 (yes, I will sell off the PB)
    - 4/24-105 IS (the classic 3 lens combo in one lens, acceptable quality, but not really great), 670 gramm
    - 2.8/70-200 IS (good lens, but way too heavy, and covering 70-105mm twice is just nonsense), 1,470 gramm
    - 1.4x Extender (I find the results with the 70-200 barely acceptable), 220 gramm

    In fact, I like longer focal lenghts a lot, that's why I have two Novoflex follow-focus lenses.
    - One is the old one-grip version with a 280mm and 400mm head,
    - the other is a more modern two-grip version with a 400mm and 560mm Telyt head.

    I would use them much more often if these beasts wouldn't require a heavy tripod, adding to the overall weight. The lenses themselves are actually lighter than Canon's costly white lenses, but of course they have no stabilizer, which is a really nice feature for telephotos.

    There is a Canon 100-400 lens. It has approximately the same weight as my 70-200, it has a very useful range, and I could stop using the Novoflexes. If it would yield better results I would buy it, but I tried it and was not impressed. Using that one with an extender results in images that are not at the quality level I would accept. There is also an 80-400 Sigma lens with a stabilizer, but results are also not very impressive, it's even heavier, and people report about a very slow and noisy autofocus.

    So, I thought about primes... the 2.8/200 is not bad, but expensive and has no stabilizer. Using it with an extender is at the same level as my 70-200, e.g. only useful in emergency cases. The 4/70-200 is slightly better and much lighter, but with the extender... no way.
    Next idea: get rid of the 70-200 and go for a 4/300, the only of the white IS telephoto lenses that would not turn me into a poor man. It's reasonably sharp, even with a 1.4x extender, but it's an older lens - the IS is a 1st generation IS, AF is not very fast, and it leaves a big gap between 105 and 300mm. It weighs 1120 gramm.

    As you see, I trapped myself in some ideas about gear and how to get rid of some weight without sacrificing some focal lengths.

    What would you do except saying "get rid of all, get a 4x5" or "what is an EOS"?
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

  2. #2
    kauffman v36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Images
    11
    Being as a started as an EOS user before ever getting into film i feel your pain. i too have a 1v w/ pb-e2 and that body alone is heavier than my 1D mark 3 digital body.

    i would get rid of the 24-105/4, its not that great of a lens. the 70-200/2.8 IS is a great lens but veerryyy heavy. have you considered the SIgma 50-500 or 150-500 OS. the 50-500 is said to be better optically but lacks the stabilization that the 150-500 has. that would take care of your telephoto needs. then you can get either 2 small primes, one wide and one longer. personally, the only zoom i have left is my sigma 120-300 2.8 but its huuuuge. i also have the Canon 28 1.8 and 85 1.8, both are excellent lenses and very cheap used.

    i dont have an easy answer for you. im a sucker for lugging weight around but if you're trying to go light then the super telephoto zooms from sigma and a couple short primes might be the way to go for you.

  3. #3
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by kauffman v36 View Post
    Being as a started as an EOS user before ever getting into film i feel your pain. i too have a 1v w/ pb-e2 and that body alone is heavier than my 1D mark 3 digital body.
    Right, that's why the pb-e2 will be sold.

    Quote Originally Posted by kauffman v36 View Post
    i would get rid of the 24-105/4, its not that great of a lens. the 70-200/2.8 IS is a great lens but veerryyy heavy.
    The 24-105 is okay, not as good as 3 primes, but good enough. The problem is more with the telephoto lenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by kauffman v36 View Post
    have you considered the SIgma 50-500 or 150-500 OS. the 50-500 is said to be better optically but lacks the stabilization that the 150-500 has.
    The comparisons at the-digital-picture.com show quite well that these Sigmas as well as Sigmas 80-400 OS are a lot worse than Canon's mediocre 100-400 IS lens and weigh even more.
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

  4. #4
    Steve Mack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Dillwyn, Virginia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    142
    Ditch the tripod. It's most likely one of the variable-weight kind: the farther you carry it the heavier it gets.

    With best regards.

    Stephen

  5. #5
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Ditch the tripod when using a 6.3/560mm without stabilizer, using MLU? What's the trick? :-)
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

  6. #6
    kauffman v36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Images
    11
    regardless of tests i can say ive seen soooo many photos from the sigma 50-500 that are simply amazing. used right, it will not dissapoint. in the telephoto section if you want really light the 70-300 IS USM is a great bang for your buck lens. i had it before and the images are good, but its a fairly slow lens with only 300mm on the far end.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    591
    I've carried my "not to be mentioned camera" with a 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 f/4-5.6. It is a lot of weight.
    Not sure how it compares to my A-1 or my RB67 which I usually carry around 3 lenses with.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    328
    Images
    7
    Zoom lenses are the biggest weight problem.

    You can get superior, faster optics from primes at 1/3 of the weight.

  9. #9
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,172
    Images
    20
    I'd go with the idea of getting rid of the 70-200 and getting the 300/4L IS USM. I had the old FD 300/4L, and it was a fantastically sharp lens, even with the 1.4x-A or 2x-A extenders. Of course the newer version with all those motors is heavier.



    If you really want to lighten up and don't need autofocus, get an FD setup. You'll save enough weight to carry an extra lens or a sturdier tripod, if you want, and you can get the top FD lenses for a fraction of the cost of their EF counterparts.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #10
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by kauffman v36 View Post
    i would get rid of the 24-105/4, its not that great of a lens. the 70-200/2.8 IS is a great lens but veerryyy heavy. have you considered the SIgma 50-500 or 150-500 OS.
    Quote Originally Posted by kauffman v36 View Post
    i would get rid of the 24-105/4, its not that great of a lens. the 70-200/2.8 IS is a great lens but veerryyy heavy. have you considered the SIgma 50-500 or 150-500 OS. the 50-500 is said to be better optically but lacks the stabilization that the 150-500 has. that would take care of your telephoto needs.
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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