[btnapa]

I quite regularly carry a sigma 70-200/2.8 and 2x TC by the camera hand grop. Have done so with every body I have owned from *IstD to K5. Lens alone weighs I think1600 grams. Add about 100g at least for the TC.

As long as the camera has a solid metal chassis it is likely OK

In my Canon days when I was shooting weddings, I did carry the fairly heavy Canon70-200 f2.8 IS lens on various bodies hanging from my should without ever giving it a second thought. Nothing ever happened. Again my application is tripod mounting the lens/body combo. I think that kind of weight might be risky for a just 1/4 screw.

[Lowell Goudge]

I quite regularly carry a sigma 70-200/2.8 and 2x TC by the camera hand grop. Have done so with every body I have owned from *IstD to K5. Lens alone weighs I think1600 grams. Add about 100g at least for the TC.

As long as the camera has a solid metal chassis it is likely OK

On a tripod, by the 1/4-20 screw? Not me...

In my Canon days when I was shooting weddings, I did carry the fairly heavy Canon70-200 f2.8 IS lens on various bodies hanging from my should without ever giving it a second thought. Nothing ever happened. Again my application is tripod mounting the lens/body combo. I think that kind of weight might be risky for a just 1/4 screw.

No, by the body grip, or shoulder strap, not the tripod screw. But the tripod screw is a lot stronger than the 6 little stainless ones inthe lens mount

[Ex Finn.]

No, by the body grip, or shoulder strap, not the tripod screw. But the tripod screw is a lot stronger than the 6 little stainless ones inthe lens mount

Agree. If the lens comes with a foot for a tripod mounting, then it is too heavy for the body to support. That is all

[zapp]

I am using a few heavier long lenses on my K3. Non of the lenses have a tripod collar.

My question is how much weight (in ounces, pounds, grams, etc.) can you put on a camera mount and be safe. My concern is that the heavy lenses might bend or damage the mount. I know common sense prevails. However, is there a magic formula or number (in weight) that one should not exceed.

Thanks for any help you techy guys can provide.

The question is not the weight alone, but depends on length and weight as well as the handling/support of the lens. Simple rule is if you are concerned, start being careful. Lens mounts are far from the rigidity that most people assume, but effects will only become visible under extreme conditions. If the lens is large enough to carry the camera/lens combo on the lens do so. A 70-200/2.8 zoom is long and heavy enough to exert sufficient force to influence the mount.

Btw.: if your ball had shows sag - get a new ball head.

[Lowell Goudge]

Just to be clear, what hangs by the lens mount, off the shoulder strap, is 1547 grams. This is an APO 70-200/2.8EX plus sigma 2x TC.

Have carried this combo on every body I have used, by the shoulder strap or in my hand using the grip on the body (no battery grip added)

I have used *istD, K10D, K7D and K5D. I still own them all and they all seem to show no ill effect

[normhead]

If i's a Pentax lens and it has a tripod mount, use it carry by with the tripod or if you tripod, support the lens not the camera. If Pentax engineers thought it was necessary to provide a tripod mount for the lens, they did so for a reason. They know the specs and what the lens body was designed for. So my method of investigation here would be to find the lightest currently sold Pentax lens with a mount, and not use anything heavier than that with out some kind of lens support.

I've never had it happen myself, but I have talked to a few guys who's seen camera bodies ruined by people who incessantly used long lenses without tripods. I know it's one of those friend of a friend stories, but I'm not interested in finding out they're right. The big issue for me isn't the weight on the camera. I seem to buy a new body every few years these days, in the old days people used the same bodies for 10 years sometimes. The issue for me is balance and tripod stability. A heavy lens on a tripod is difficult to aim. On less than a $500 plus tripod you have to go through many test tightenings of the of the tripod head to get your framing right. It's bad enough with a tripod collar, it's messed up totally with a huge camera hanging on the end of a camera.

On a tripod, by the 1/4-20 screw? Not me...

I've put a "10 screw 3 quarters of an inch into a beam and used a claw hammer to pull myself off the ground supported by it. I bet I could do the same with a tripod mount. They're actually engineering over kill.

[stevebrot]

Lens mounts are far from the rigidity that most people assume, but effects will only become visible under extreme conditions.

This is quite true. The body portion of the K-mount is spring loaded and may fail to maintain registration under high load if the lens portion is poorly machined.

Btw.: if your ball had shows sag - get a new ball head.

While sag is often associated with the head, I have found that it can also be caused by upward deflection of the tripod legs themselves. The best rule of thumb (echoed in the capacity ratings from the manufacturers) is to balance the load on the tripod regardless of how beefy the head/legs are.


Steve

[snostorm]

Sorry, just saw this thread. . . I wouldn't worry about the strength of the K mount. I always carry my cameras in my hand with a grip strap for security and so I don't have to support the weight with my finger strength alone. I have, in the past, carried my bodies with a 300 f2.8 class lens all day, every day 6-7 days a week) during birding season with the lens attached and the camera's mount taking all the weight of the lens. This was up to about two years ago, with a DS, K100DS, K10, K20, and K-5 and lenses that weigh from a little under 6 lbs to 6 lbs, 10 oz for the FA* 300 f2.8 with the hood. I won't recommend this for others, because anything like that on a public forum is just asking for trouble, but have had zero problems doing this with my own gear, with neither the bodies nor lenses having suffered at all from this. Even on days where I don't pack the 300/2.8s, I usually have at least 2 lbs of lens mounted on each of the bodies (Sigma EX 180 f3.5 APO DG or FA* 300 f4.5).

70-200 f2.8s and 300 f4s are babies compared to these lenses at 1/3 to 1/2 the weight. In the film days, a 70-200 f2.8 was considered the long zoom of choice for event shooters, and many cameras spent years with one of these mounted without any concern for damage to the lens mount. . . and the mount hasn't changed from a physical strength standpoint -- if anything, there have probably been improvements from a materials standpoint. There seems to be a severe underestimation of the durability of the camera mounts on Pentax DSLR bodies. . .

Do whatever you think is right though. . . confidence in your gear is a very important factor in getting results. Most laud Pentax for their rugged construction, but most in this thread at least, don't really seem to really believe it and over-baby their gear. . .

Scott

[stevebrot]

I have, in the past, carried my bodies with a 300 f2.8 class lens all day, every day 6-7 days a week) during birding season with the lens attached and the camera's mount taking all the weight of the lens.

And when you brought the combination to eye, did you hold the lens or the body? Did you mount tripod to body or to lens? Holding straight down is one thing. Cantilevering the lens out from the body is another thing.

I am not the oldest member of this forum, but my "small format" SLR experience does span more than four decades. Conventional wisdom when I first started in the late '60s was that the mounts (all brands) were not designed for or intended to bear the weight of large lenses. FWIW, tripod mounts on M42 Super Takumars began with the 300/5.6 at 29 oz (825 gm)*.


Steve

* The Spotmatic II body (intended for use with above lens), by comparison, weighs 20 oz (622 gm) without film or battery

[snostorm]

And when you brought the combination to eye, did you hold the lens or the body? Did you mount tripod to body or to lens? Holding straight down is one thing. Cantilevering the lens out from the body is another thing.

Is this a serious question?

Not having Popeye's right forearm, I would, of course carry the camera/lens hanging at my side. When a shot op presented itself, I'd rotate the lens to horizontal with my right hand as I brought it up to about waist level, then grab the lens barrel with my left hand and bring it up to eye level with both hands. By the time it was at eye level, almost all of the weight was supported by the left hand and arm, and the right hand only served to position the shutter finger, work the dials, and help steady the camera -- at this point, the right hand is completely relaxed, and really adds no support. I would think this would be self-apparent.

I am not the oldest member of this forum, but my "small format" SLR experience does span more than four decades. Conventional wisdom when I first started in the late '60s was that the mounts (all brands) were not designed for or intended to bear the weight of large lenses. FWIW, tripod mounts on M42 Super Takumars began with the 300/5.6 at 29 oz (825 gm)*.

Then we have about the same number of years shooting SLRs. I started in '68. I also have 10 years shooting birds with Pentax DSLRs, and over eight years shooting 300/2.8 class lenses on them, and during this period, I shot hand held the great majority of the time as I don't usually set up, but rather wander around and shoot opportunistically. I've had 7 Pentax DSLR bodies, and all of these have lived with 2-6 lb lenses mounted on them @90% of the time, and were carried in hand 4-6 hours a day 5-7 days a week from March to November. All of these bodies are currently in service, either by me or the people I gave them to, and none of them have ever suffered or been serviced for warping or any other kind of lens mount damage. I imagine it would also be reasonable to include the mounts on my 3 F 1.7x AFAs, my Sigma EX 1.4x APO, and Tamron F 1.4x AF PZ MC4 TCs, as one of these were also mounted probably on the order of 50% of the time. I do regularly check the screw torque on all mounts, but have only had to tighten the ones on the Sigma TC.

FWIW, the M* 300 f4 (825g), the A* 300 f4 (850g) and the FA* 300 f4.5 (930g) were not supplied with tripod rings on the lens (the two MF lenses are notoriously difficult to match to a third party tripod collar because there really is no place to mount one on the barrel). The FA* was apparently designed to be shot handheld since Pentax did supply a tripod foot with the previous F* 300 f4 even though that lens weighed 880g (but the published weight may not have included the foot). I really don't think that Pentax lens designers set up any hard weight or FL cutoff where they felt an included tripod collar was a requirement in the lens' design. BTW, with the FA* 300/4.5, I've had occasion to tripod mount cameras with this lens, and always use the tripod collar that came with my Tamron 80-200 f2.8 mdl Adaptall 2. This is not out of concern for my lens mount though, but rather since it allows for better camera orientation with my Wimberley Sidekick, which is a side-mount gimbal arm. Also, the Sigma EX 300 f2.8 does not come supplied with strap lugs on the lens, which implies that they assumed that the camera would either be carried suspended by a strap attached to the camera body or that it would be carried mounted on a tripod slung over the shoulder (which BTW, I don't do either -- when using a tripod, I'd always dismount the camera from the support and carry them separately)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that people purposely stress their camera or lens mounts, just that they are not nearly as fragile as most of the posts in this thread seem to state or imply. BTW, I've known event photographers who had 70-200 f2.8 class lenses almost permanently mounted on their SLR and DSLR cameras of different makes for decades without any mount damage.

Scott

[stevebrot]

This is not out of concern for my lens mount though, but rather since it allows for better camera orientation with my Wimberley Sidekick, which is a side-mount gimbal arm.

This and your other comments indicate your practice. You don't mount the camera to a tripod and hang the lens out in space with only five small screws holding it there. You also don't hold the camera body by itself and cantilever the lens out there without support (very hard to do). I agree that the mount is not fragile, but it is also not industrial strength. Ask a repair tech if you believe otherwise. More than one repair (usually caused by a tripod accident) has involved redrilling/tapping stripped out mount holes.

In regards to the OP's question, I still recommend supporting the lens as opposed to supporting the body alone. The benefits extend far beyond "babying" the mount. Balancing one's kit just simply makes sense, just as your Wimberly Sidekick simply makes sense for bird photography. To be honest, the question regarding the strength of the mount is moot if the camera is being properly handled. That is why I used the example of balance on the tripod.

All this being said, I don't shoot any truly long lenses. The heaviest is a 200mm f/3.5 Vivitar in M42 mount with no tripod mount. My tripod head is up to the task, but I always wince a little when I use that lens adapted to my K-3 on tripod.


Steve