A friend sent this to me, interesting (I hadn't seen it before)



FYI its canon f/4, sigma f/2.8, canon f/2.8, then canon f/2.8 IS.

I looked up weights, they are:
1.7#, 3#, 2.8#, 3.5#

^ cool. Ill have to find the weight differences for the 4..

That picture perfectly defines why I have the f/4 now and not the f/2.8 of any variety, too damn big for me...

I wonder if b&h has weights. Somehow I think the sigma is 2.8#.

edit: b&h lists #'s, i'll update the first post.

Well one thing I'm not sure, the IS lists a with and without tripod collar weight, which is .3# extra. I don't know if the 2.8 has that included or not.

B&H should have weights. My father recently got the 2.8 IS and I never really realized it was slightly bigger in all dimensions than my regular 2.8

Scott, do you really care about the size, or just weight?


<--- weight guy, and pats 1st down.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

ScotT, do you really care about the size, or just weight?


<--- weight guy, and pats 1st down.

Weight is what really matters, but size doesn't help. Although, I'll probably never take it backpacking where size would really matter...

I do love my mini-hubble. And all things considered, if you're going to bring along a 70-200 anyway, the 2.8 IS isn't that much additional size or weight.

Originally Posted by Stime187

...

it's normally scoot, so yeah....

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I do love my mini-hubble. And all things considered, if you're going to bring along a 70-200 anyway, the 2.8 IS isn't that much additional size or weight.

Its a good deal bigger and over twice as heavy as my f/4 L, so yeah, its too big for me. Especially considering I don't need the extra stop at all.

Originally Posted by Stime187

Its a good deal bigger and over twice as heavy as my f/4 L, so yeah, its too big for me. Especially considering I don't need the extra stop at all.

I realize that, but my point was that if you're going to be toting around any 70-200, like the f4, it's not much more to ask to haul along the other lens that weighs 1.8# more with slightly bigger dimensions. Yes, the 2.8 IS is double the weight of the f4, but we're still only talking about 1.8# total difference. And I don't think I could tell the difference between a 50# pack and one that weighs 51.8#.

Originally Posted by tardypizza

I realize that, but my point was that if you're going to be toting around any 70-200, like the f4, it's not much more to ask to haul along another 1.8# with slightly bigger dimensions. Yes, the 2.8 IS is double the weight of the f4, but we're still only talking about 1.8#. And I don't think I could tell the difference between a 50# pack and one that weighs 51.8#.

Well, 1.8# here and there can really make huge differences but that really only becomes evident on backpacking trips which I doubt I'll ever take it on so its almost a moot point. But the main reason for downgrading was... I made $200 off the deal, lost some weight (1.8#), lost some pack size and didn't lose ANYTHING in my opinion in I.Q. So yeah, it was a no-brainer for me. But for the most part, you're right. If someone has any reason for the f/2.8 whatsoever, they might as well just keep it. I just don't think I'd ever used it wide-open...

I'm with Scott.

I DO make decisions on what I bring based on sometimes as little as 5-6oz. Everything adds up, and for a trip when I can pack a 30# pack vs. a 45-50# pack it makes a difference. I can hike faster, see more, etc.

For me though, the decision will probably be to just not bring the 3# piece of glass that isn't gonna be that useful, I don't think its a focal range I'd be using in the backcountry that much unless I start shooting wildlife, but honestly with my dog along I typically don't see much of that. She does a pretty good job of running ahead on the trail and scaring anything up there away. The one week I've gone without her this year I saw a bear cub + mom, and was within 5' of a deer.