What about those lens weights?

[scottburgess]

Are you doing curls with your lenses lately? Is your photo pack dragging you down hills? Or is all the fuss about the weight of today's lenses just for wusses? After a discussion of gear weight elsewhere, I saw Bryan's review of the Sigma Art where he cleverly provided the build data for many 50mm lenses, along with dates of manufacture. Dropping them into a scatter plot yielded the attached chart.

At least this confirms what we would suspect. None of the lenses in his review built prior to the year 2000 weigh more than 400 grams, while 6/10 of those after do. There are a few notable lenses missing, and this only covers 50mm, but the data here was handy so I nabbed it.

So what do folks think? Is smaller and lighter better for you? Or do you prefer higher quality and damn the pounds? Have you swapped down to a mirrorless ILC, or would you own and use both ILCs and SLRs?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It depends very much on the lens, and on who built it, as well as its intended end user.

The comparison should be done with the equivalent lens from the same manufacturer to be of any use.

Compare the 400mm f/2.8 IS 1 vs 400mm f/2.8 IS II, same for the 300mm, 500mm, and 600mm.

I think that the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II might be slightly heaver than the MK I, but not enough so to be weighing down my bag.

Canon has also produced numerous versions of the 50mm f/1.8. How does the weight compare. I've had the Japan version, the Chinese Version, I think I had a Malaysian version, and at least two US versions. I did not notice any weight creep, in fact, they are getting lighter, if anything.

The point is that you can manufacturer statistics by picking and choosing something that shows what you want to prove.

 

[dolina]

If you may have noticed the 50mm's IQ has improved through the years as well. Perhaps that has an influence on the weight.

As Mt Spokane mentioned there are times when newer lens means lighter as well. I honestly would not have bought a 400/2.8 IS in its Series 1 form and waited for the Series 2. I also wouldnt buy a 600/4 IS in its Series 1 form and waited for the Series 2.

 

[Random Orbits]

I usually opt for quality over size/weight, but it does start to get heavy fast after the 3rd or 4th lens (especially when one of them is something like the 70-200L II). What bothers me more is how much larger in diameter the newer lenses are, which make it harder to arrange efficiently in camera bags esp. with the hoods on/reversed. Which means I have to get a larger camera bag, but then feel foolish that it's not completely full so it ends up being heavier than it needs to be.

More than 95% of my shots are with a FF DSLR, but the M has its place. There is no way that I'd bring the DLSR and a bag of lenses when on a business trip (usually cameras aren't allowed and I'm not comfortable leaving it in the hotel room), but the M with a couple EOS-M lenses easily fit in a shoulder bag or in a coat (and is a lot less costly to replace). Even though the M system takes nice pictures, I often wish I was using the DSLR when in the act of taking pictures. There may be reasons why I used the M over the DSLR, but the ergonomics and the photographic experience of a FF DSLR are so much better than with a MILC.

 

[scottburgess]

It depends very much on the lens, and on who built it, as well as its intended end user.

The comparison should be done with the equivalent lens from the same manufacturer to be of any use.

...
The point is that you can manufacturer statistics by picking and choosing something that shows what you want to prove.

Actually, the point was to survey folks about their opinions since the data desired is proprietary.

Ideally, one would look at lens sales percentages multiplied by lens weight within classes of lenses if one were doing a dissertation on the topic. I doubt CIPA members will ever provide such data. Given that most folks recognize that available lens weights and filter sizes have risen, the chart was intended as merely a conversation starter.

 

[scottburgess]

If you may have noticed the 50mm's IQ has improved through the years as well. Perhaps that has an influence on the weight.

In some cases, we know the answer is yes. The recent 50mm Sigma ART lens, for example, supposedly achieves better images via a larger image circle. Zeiss Otus as well.

But the question is whether you would sacrifice quality to lower weight, or carry more for the sake of incrementally better images?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

In general, I do not care about the weight of a lens, since it is below 1 kilogram. When it comes to necessarily large and heavy lenses, I could pay more for a model that is 20% lighter, and all other characteristics remain the same.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Depends 1000% on why you take pictures.

I get why some people want a 70-200/2.8 or 600mm beast.

I'm always looking for the smallest kit with the largest sensor and viewfinder; a challenge. I guess Sony a7 is that but I'm not at all interested in evfs. So I have a 6D (as light as a full frame dslr has ever come). And I have a Voigtlander 20 and 40STM and a 70-200 f4 is. All hand-holdable very easily. Weight and size were significant considerations. Portability for travel, hiking and because I'm usually combining photography with another activity. I don't want the gear to get in the way.

 

[Menace]

Compare the 400mm f/2.8 IS 1 vs 400mm f/2.8 IS II

There is a huge difference in weight between the 400 I & II - IQ of the I was great whilst the II is simply stunning and its much lighter to carry around

 

[Maximilian]

So what do folks think? Is smaller and lighter better for you? Or do you prefer higher quality and damn the pounds?

It always depends on what IQ you need - or think you need.
I am willing to carry more weight, if build quality and IQ are at a higher level. But I prefer a good compromise.
Still, everything must stay handholdable for me, which is subjective.
And If I want to travel light, I would choose the proper equipment.

Have you swapped down to a mirrorless ILC, or would you own and use both ILCs and SLRs?

Be cautious! ILC, MFT or else are giving you lighter and smaller lenses in terms of reach.
If you want to achieve same thin DOF then you need bigger apertures. And then there is no weight and space saving. Not even cost saving.
For example compare an 70-200 f2.8 to this one here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html

 

[Zv]

It depends what I'm doing and where I'm going. On vacation I take most of my gear but for small trips and just day to day stuff I'm finding the EOS M is handier. There is something refreshing about being at a party and shooting casually with the EOS M and 22/2 lens. It leaves space in a small bag for other things like a flash and some radio triggers!

I have no issues with the weight of my FF lenses though, I actually like them to be a bit sturdy and meaty! All my L lenses seem to be a good size and fit comfortably in the hand. I wouldn't want anything heavier than about 800g though as the combined weight of all the lenses would be annoying when traveling. So yeah I'd say there is a balance between getting good image quality and how big and heavy I'm willing to go.

 

[mackguyver]

Weight doesn't bother me, but size does - I love the 300 f/2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS II, but they are beasts and take up a lot of room in my bag.

 

[dancook]

I walk around the street with about 4kg in my hands, supplements my gym sessions nicely !

 

[Menace]

Weight doesn't bother me, but size does - I love the 300 f/2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS II, but they are beasts and take up a lot of room in my bag.

Same here - Weight is ok but size can be an issue.

I'm only 5'6" but happy to carry my 1DX with 400 2.8 II on a mono pod whilst 5DIII with 70-200 2.8 on a BR around my neck.

Works well for me.

 

[sdsr]

So what do folks think? Is smaller and lighter better for you? Or do you prefer higher quality and damn the pounds? Have you swapped down to a mirrorless ILC, or would you own and use both ILCs and SLRs?

I used not to worry about weight (though after spending a full day walking around with several pounds of ff equipment I would sometimes wish I hadn't) until I tried some M43 equipment a year or so ago and was pleasantly enough surprised to buy some. After extensive periods of time using it, switching back to FF Canon dslrs was rather a jolt. I've since added a Sony A7r (465grams) along with the Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 (120g!) and 55 1.8 (281g), all of which together weigh only 50g more than the new Sigma 50 1.4 by itself. The image quality is fantastic, so there's no trade-off at all in that regard (unless you need a faster aperture, of course, or need to photograph herons-catching-fish). For now I'm keeping all three (plus a SL1), but I'm not sure how long that will be the case. (For some uses there's still no substitute for a dslr, but they tend not to apply to me, so....)

(As for lens weight increasing over time in general, during the last couple of weeks I've been playing around with some old manual lenses on my mirrorless cameras; and while they're often quite a bit smaller than their modern counterparts, they're surprisingly heavy for their size if you've become used to modern mostly-plastic primes - great to use, and much less bulky, but not necessarily much of a weight savings.)

 

[Eldar]

When I´m off for a trip, where I may be shooting everything from birds/wildlife to social events, it gets heavy.

I fill up my Lowepro Pro Trekker 600 AW with a 600, extenders, Otus, 70-300L (or the 70-200 2.8L II), 24-70 2.8L II, 15mm 2.8 (Zeiss), 85 1.2L II and at least one TS-E (24 or 17), 5DIII, 1DX, plus flash, batteries, a tripod with ball head and Gimbal and a 15" MacBook Pro ...

I am OK with each of the lenses, but summing it up makes a very heavy pack.

 

[atkinsr]

To a great extent, it's more about balance than weight. I have a Sigma 24-105 F4 that weighs in at 885g. While in the camera shop the other day, I took it off to try out a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS), it weighs 1310g. It should have felt awful, but in hand, felt more balanced and as light as the Sigma. Even hanging from my shoulder on the strap, it wasn't nearly as bad as the spec would have you believe, perhaps only feeling 10-20% heavier.

The crappy Canon 75-300 $199 lens that I "borrowed" (bought & returned) from Best Buy (I needed a lens for vacation - which I was leaving for the morning after the camera purchase) only weighed 480g, but it felt heavier than the Sigma, and was so long when extended that I felt I needed a pilot car every time I wanted to turn around.

*shrug* I'm all for lighter weights if they can be had without giving up durability or reliability, but there's more to it than weight alone.

 

[zlatko]

So what do folks think? Is smaller and lighter better for you? Or do you prefer higher quality and damn the pounds? Have you swapped down to a mirrorless ILC, or would you own and use both ILCs and SLRs?

I'm generally in favor of smaller and lighter because it all adds up. My wedding photography gear usually adds up like this:
a) gear I'm often carrying on me = 7 lbs.
b) additional gear in my shoulder bag = 17 lbs.
c) additional gear in my backup bag = 13 lbs.
Total of the above = 37 lbs.

That's after making careful choices about what to bring and after replacing a few items with lighter versions. I've included some mirrorless and I'm considering further reductions. It used to be more (I used to use a wheeled bag).

 

[verysimplejason]

As I'm more of a traveller these days, the lighter, the better. For serious work, primes would do it except for events where I favor light zooms.

 

[WPJ]

Yes gear does get heavy, I have been using a think tank belt system to distribute the weight I have just recently also added a military style load bearing vest for when I am hiking and wanting to bring more gear with me, I find it better than a back pack because it again it distributes the load over more of your upper body instead of your shoulders.