Big glass. Why complain about weight?

BillO · 12-21-2019, 06:50 PM - **3 Likes**

I'm getting older (62+) and carting around my 600/4, 300/2.8, 300/4.5, 80-200/2.8, 200/4 macro, etc... is getting harder. However, I knew what I was getting into when I bought these. I knew what they could do for me, and my research told me what they weighed ... and I bought them regardless and have been using them for years. Big, quality glass cannot be made as light as a crappy kit lens, even if you make the barrels out of carbon fiber. That might save a few ounces, but would increase costs dramatically and reduce robustness.

So, given that intro, why do so many folk complain about the weight of their best lenses? Did the weight really come as a surprise to them? I see in many of the reviews that weight is listed as a con. I mean, how can you hold it against a thing just because it has to be a certain way? Do folks really expect a 300/4 to weight 1/2 a pound?

It just seems so silly to me that someone would buy a 600/4 and whine that it weighs a lot. It is what it is, and if that is too much, then pass it on to someone that can appreciate that it's qualities come with a price.

Or am I totally off base here?

Happy Holidays!!!!

MetalUndivided · 12-21-2019, 07:07 PM - **2 Likes**

Hauling a 2.5 kg lens around all day isn't made any easier by the fact that you've been expecting it.

**Apet-Sure** · 12-21-2019, 07:11 PM - **1 Like**

I'm with you BillO. Until materials engineers come up with a lighter material that is superior to glass in every way for optics, you have to live with the laws of physics. I know some lenses have plastic elements that have compound curves for better aberration control. I even used a Nikon camera at work that had a plastic front element on its lens. But I think we're a long way from a completely glass-less camera lens. If you want a lot of reach and you don't want to use a mirror lens or have a very slow lens, you're going to have a lot of glass. Glass is made from sand. Sand is denser than water. Get over it.

reh321 · 12-21-2019, 07:16 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by BillO

I'm getting older (62+) and carting around my 600/4, 300/2.8, 300/4.5, 80-200/2.8, 200/4 macro, etc... is getting harder. However, I knew what I was getting into when I bought these. I knew what they could do for me, and my research told me what they weighed ... and I bought them regardless and have been using them for years. Big, quality glass cannot be made as light as a crappy kit lens, even if you make the barrels out of carbon fiber. That might save a few ounces, but would increase costs dramatically and reduce robustness.

So, given that intro, why do so many folk complain about the weight of their best lenses? Did the weight really come as a surprise to them? I see in many of the reviews that weight is listed as a con. I mean, how can you hold it against a thing just because it has to be a certain way? Do folks really expect a 300/4 to weight 1/2 a pound?

It just seems so silly to me that someone would buy a 600/4 and whine that it weighs a lot. It is what it is, and if that is too much, then pass it on to someone that can appreciate that it's qualities come with a price.

Or am I totally off base here?

Happy Holidays!!!!

You did research, then made your choice based on your priorities. I did similar research, then made my choice based on my priorities.

I have never taken narrow DOF shots on purpose. I want to show the context of the shot. I often photograph long locomotives or long passenger cars or long buildings or landscape shots that need lots of depth. To me, wide aperture was a cost of shooting in lower light, until a year ago when I got my KP - which handles higher ISO values so gracefully.

I have never purchased a f/2.8 or f/4 lens, because the cost is high {and I have better use for the money} and I have never seen a reason to carry a heavy lens for a mile when my wife and I could walk several miles with a lighter lens - thus I have never had a reason to “whine” about the weight of the lenses I do choose to purchase.

In short, I have always purchased the right lenses for my photography, just as you choose the right lenses for your photography.

And “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year” to you, also.

amstel78 · 12-21-2019, 07:28 PM

With the lenses you're carrying, sounds like most of your photography is either sports or wildlife. In that case, there isn't much you can do except maybe go to MFT (micro 4/3).

For the vast majority of photography consumers this day and age though, an iPhone will suffice unless you're making big prints.

Honestly, when I'm traveling internationally with my family these days, I'm more inclined to grab my Olympus than I am my Pentax due to weight. When I know I have to take a good picture, then side and weight become secondary considerations.

bertwert · 12-21-2019, 07:34 PM - **8 Likes**

I'm not sure how long you've been active in the forums, and how much attention you pay, but we like to complain. A lot.

dbs · 12-21-2019, 07:36 PM - **1 Like**

People are never really happy with anything in life so now with the internet they can tell everyone who cares to 'listen' to them.

Dave

**blackcloudbrew** · 12-21-2019, 07:39 PM - **2 Likes**

I'm with the OP on this. Until I bought my K-1II and 645z, all my Pentax cameras were much lighter weight than those other brands. That gave me the opportunity to carry a lot more lenses. I'm 69 but I do work out and really, I don't really notice the weight of the camera/lenses that I need for each situation. For me, I feel that I bought the gear and I'll live with carrying what I need, when I need it. I want to say, 'get over it," but that's a phrase that's gotten too much use of late.

**monochrome** · 12-21-2019, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by blackcloudbrew

I'm with the OP on this. Until I bought my K-1II and 645z, all my Pentax cameras were much lighter weight than those other brands. That gave me the opportunity to carry a lot more lenses. I'm 69 but I do work out and really, I don't really notice the weight of the camera/lenses that I need for each situation. For me, I feel that I bought the gear and I'll live with carrying what I need, when I need it. I want to say, 'get over it," but that's a phrase that's gotten too much use of late.

I’m beginning to feel the weight in my legs but not yet my arms and hands.

K-1 - K500/4.5 - FA*300/4.5 - 1.4x TC - sturdy tripod and gimbal. I’m just not hiking all day with this gear any more - or even more than a mile from a road.

So I stay close to a road and shoot what I can get to. Doesn’t lessen my enjoyment that I can’t lug the gear to a mountain top any more.

**aslyfox** · 12-21-2019, 07:53 PM

we all have the ability to research a lot about the lenses Pentax has to offer due to these forums

and like other things in life compromises are made

I have some big heavy lenses:

Diam x Length 95 x 241.5 mm (3.7 x 9.5 in.) Weight 2000 g (70.5 oz.), w/ Hood: +130g w/ Tripod Foot: +195g

Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Diam x Length 91.5 x 203 mm (3.6 x 8 in.) Weight 1755 g (61.9 oz.) w/ Hood: +80g w/ Tripod Foot: +191g

Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Diam x Length 83 x 184 mm (3.3 x 7.2 in.) Weight 1070 g (37.7 oz.) w/ Hood: +90g w/ Tripod Foot: +80g

Read more at: SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

used for specific purposes and not for ever day use.

my other smaller lighter lenses are used for other purposes

it is all a matter of choice

and if you are like me, your choices might change as you get older ( and wiser ??)

**boriscleto** · 12-21-2019, 07:54 PM - **1 Like**

I won't complain about the 150-450. It's heavier than the Sigma 150-500 but it's so much better...

Paul the Sunman · 12-21-2019, 08:01 PM - **1 Like**

Yes, all very well, but the DFA* 50, DFA* 70-200, and DFA 15-30 are considerably heavier than very good Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite not having SR/VR onboard. A top lens should be as heavy as necessary, but not more so.

amstel78 · 12-21-2019, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Paul the Sunman

Yes, all very well, but the DFA* 50, DFA* 70-200, and DFA 15-30 are considerably heavier than very good Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite not having SR/VR onboard. A top lens should be as heavy as necessary, but not more so.

I own the 50* and the 70-200. You ain't kidding...

**monochrome** · 12-21-2019, 08:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Paul the Sunman

Yes, all very well, but the DFA* 50, DFA* 70-200, and DFA 15-30 are considerably heavier than very good Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite not having SR/VR onboard. A top lens should be as heavy as necessary, but not more so.

Originally posted by amstel78

I own the 50* and the 70-200. You ain't kidding...

The DA*50/1.4 is a category killing lens and the 70-200 isn’t far off the very best. That comes at a price in cost and weight so they are as heavy as necessary.

amstel78 · 12-21-2019, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

The DA*50/1.4 is a category killing lens and the 70-200 isn’t far off the very best. That comes at a price in cost and weight so they are as heavy as necessary.

The 50* as you say is indeed a category killer.

The 70-200 DFA*, not so much. Its IQ is on par with a well centered and calibrated Tamron. I've always wondered why it's so heavy when you have a similar amount of elements.

On a side note, I used to own the plastic-barreled Tamron branded 70-200 and felt for the price, was a very good optically. The Pentax version is a hair better. The areas where the Pentax version really excels is its weatherability (used in the pouring rain once) and focus motors. Apart from that, nothing else really stands out except its heft.

12-21-2019, 06:50 PM - 3 Likes	#1
BillO Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 89	Big glass. Why complain about weight? I'm getting older (62+) and carting around my 600/4, 300/2.8, 300/4.5, 80-200/2.8, 200/4 macro, etc... is getting harder. However, I knew what I was getting into when I bought these. I knew what they could do for me, and my research told me what they weighed ... and I bought them regardless and have been using them for years. Big, quality glass cannot be made as light as a crappy kit lens, even if you make the barrels out of carbon fiber. That might save a few ounces, but would increase costs dramatically and reduce robustness. So, given that intro, why do so many folk complain about the weight of their best lenses? Did the weight really come as a surprise to them? I see in many of the reviews that weight is listed as a con. I mean, how can you hold it against a thing just because it has to be a certain way? Do folks really expect a 300/4 to weight 1/2 a pound? It just seems so silly to me that someone would buy a 600/4 and whine that it weighs a lot. It is what it is, and if that is too much, then pass it on to someone that can appreciate that it's qualities come with a price. Or am I totally off base here? Happy Holidays!!!!

12-21-2019, 07:50 PM	#9
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by blackcloudbrew I'm with the OP on this. Until I bought my K-1II and 645z, all my Pentax cameras were much lighter weight than those other brands. That gave me the opportunity to carry a lot more lenses. I'm 69 but I do work out and really, I don't really notice the weight of the camera/lenses that I need for each situation. For me, I feel that I bought the gear and I'll live with carrying what I need, when I need it. I want to say, 'get over it," but that's a phrase that's gotten too much use of late. I’m beginning to feel the weight in my legs but not yet my arms and hands. K-1 - K500/4.5 - FA300/4.5 - 1.4x TC - sturdy tripod and gimbal. I’m just not hiking all day with this gear any more - or even more than a mile from a road. So I stay close to a road and shoot what I can get to. Doesn’t lessen my enjoyment that I can’t lug the gear to a mountain top any more. Last edited by monochrome; 12-21-2019 at 07:55 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WG-3 GPS - Help with using GPS function (or maybe I just need to complain...)	ShawnKann	Pentax Compact Cameras	3	01-08-2014 05:07 PM
Who wants to lose some weight (a weight loss challenge!)	jct us101	General Talk	290	05-03-2013 11:49 AM
Why people complain about Pentax AF and Flash	GreenMachine	Pentax DSLR Discussion	51	09-26-2012 10:01 PM
Complain about your camera here	pingflood	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	03-23-2010 05:58 PM

12-21-2019, 07:07 PM - 2 Likes	#2
MetalUndivided Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2019 Location: Irkutsk, Russia Posts: 134	Hauling a 2.5 kg lens around all day isn't made any easier by the fact that you've been expecting it.

12-21-2019, 07:11 PM - 1 Like	#3
Apet-Sure Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Goldsboro North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,872	I'm with you BillO. Until materials engineers come up with a lighter material that is superior to glass in every way for optics, you have to live with the laws of physics. I know some lenses have plastic elements that have compound curves for better aberration control. I even used a Nikon camera at work that had a plastic front element on its lens. But I think we're a long way from a completely glass-less camera lens. If you want a lot of reach and you don't want to use a mirror lens or have a very slow lens, you're going to have a lot of glass. Glass is made from sand. Sand is denser than water. Get over it.

12-21-2019, 07:16 PM - 2 Likes	#4
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,185	Originally posted by BillO I'm getting older (62+) and carting around my 600/4, 300/2.8, 300/4.5, 80-200/2.8, 200/4 macro, etc... is getting harder. However, I knew what I was getting into when I bought these. I knew what they could do for me, and my research told me what they weighed ... and I bought them regardless and have been using them for years. Big, quality glass cannot be made as light as a crappy kit lens, even if you make the barrels out of carbon fiber. That might save a few ounces, but would increase costs dramatically and reduce robustness. So, given that intro, why do so many folk complain about the weight of their best lenses? Did the weight really come as a surprise to them? I see in many of the reviews that weight is listed as a con. I mean, how can you hold it against a thing just because it has to be a certain way? Do folks really expect a 300/4 to weight 1/2 a pound? It just seems so silly to me that someone would buy a 600/4 and whine that it weighs a lot. It is what it is, and if that is too much, then pass it on to someone that can appreciate that it's qualities come with a price. Or am I totally off base here? Happy Holidays!!!! You did research, then made your choice based on your priorities. I did similar research, then made my choice based on my priorities. I have never taken narrow DOF shots on purpose. I want to show the context of the shot. I often photograph long locomotives or long passenger cars or long buildings or landscape shots that need lots of depth. To me, wide aperture was a cost of shooting in lower light, until a year ago when I got my KP - which handles higher ISO values so gracefully. I have never purchased a f/2.8 or f/4 lens, because the cost is high {and I have better use for the money} and I have never seen a reason to carry a heavy lens for a mile when my wife and I could walk several miles with a lighter lens - thus I have never had a reason to “whine” about the weight of the lenses I do choose to purchase. In short, I have always purchased the right lenses for my photography, just as you choose the right lenses for your photography. And “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year” to you, also.

12-21-2019, 07:28 PM	#5
amstel78 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: NEPA, NYC, and wherever work sends me... Photos: Albums Posts: 247	With the lenses you're carrying, sounds like most of your photography is either sports or wildlife. In that case, there isn't much you can do except maybe go to MFT (micro 4/3). For the vast majority of photography consumers this day and age though, an iPhone will suffice unless you're making big prints. Honestly, when I'm traveling internationally with my family these days, I'm more inclined to grab my Olympus than I am my Pentax due to weight. When I know I have to take a good picture, then side and weight become secondary considerations.

12-21-2019, 07:34 PM - 8 Likes	#6
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,172	I'm not sure how long you've been active in the forums, and how much attention you pay, but we like to complain. A lot.

12-21-2019, 07:36 PM - 1 Like	#7
dbs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Clare Valley S A Photos: Albums Posts: 7,565	People are never really happy with anything in life so now with the internet they can tell everyone who cares to 'listen' to them. Dave

12-21-2019, 07:39 PM - 2 Likes	#8
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,461	I'm with the OP on this. Until I bought my K-1II and 645z, all my Pentax cameras were much lighter weight than those other brands. That gave me the opportunity to carry a lot more lenses. I'm 69 but I do work out and really, I don't really notice the weight of the camera/lenses that I need for each situation. For me, I feel that I bought the gear and I'll live with carrying what I need, when I need it. I want to say, 'get over it," but that's a phrase that's gotten too much use of late.

12-21-2019, 07:53 PM	#10
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,583	we all have the ability to research a lot about the lenses Pentax has to offer due to these forums and like other things in life compromises are made I have some big heavy lenses: Diam x Length 95 x 241.5 mm (3.7 x 9.5 in.) Weight 2000 g (70.5 oz.), w/ Hood: +130g w/ Tripod Foot: +195g Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Diam x Length 91.5 x 203 mm (3.6 x 8 in.) Weight 1755 g (61.9 oz.) w/ Hood: +80g w/ Tripod Foot: +191g Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Diam x Length 83 x 184 mm (3.3 x 7.2 in.) Weight 1070 g (37.7 oz.) w/ Hood: +90g w/ Tripod Foot: +80g Read more at: SMC Pentax-DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database used for specific purposes and not for ever day use. my other smaller lighter lenses are used for other purposes it is all a matter of choice and if you are like me, your choices might change as you get older ( and wiser ??)

12-21-2019, 07:54 PM - 1 Like	#11
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,477	I won't complain about the 150-450. It's heavier than the Sigma 150-500 but it's so much better...

12-21-2019, 08:01 PM - 1 Like	#12
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,847	Yes, all very well, but the DFA* 50, DFA* 70-200, and DFA 15-30 are considerably heavier than very good Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite not having SR/VR onboard. A top lens should be as heavy as necessary, but not more so.

12-21-2019, 08:03 PM	#13
amstel78 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: NEPA, NYC, and wherever work sends me... Photos: Albums Posts: 247	Originally posted by Paul the Sunman Yes, all very well, but the DFA* 50, DFA* 70-200, and DFA 15-30 are considerably heavier than very good Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite not having SR/VR onboard. A top lens should be as heavy as necessary, but not more so. I own the 50* and the 70-200. You ain't kidding...

12-21-2019, 08:15 PM - 1 Like	#14
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by Paul the Sunman Yes, all very well, but the DFA* 50, DFA* 70-200, and DFA 15-30 are considerably heavier than very good Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite not having SR/VR onboard. A top lens should be as heavy as necessary, but not more so. Originally posted by amstel78 I own the 50* and the 70-200. You ain't kidding... The DA*50/1.4 is a category killing lens and the 70-200 isn’t far off the very best. That comes at a price in cost and weight so they are as heavy as necessary.

12-21-2019, 08:21 PM	#15
amstel78 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2018 Location: NEPA, NYC, and wherever work sends me... Photos: Albums Posts: 247	Originally posted by monochrome The DA50/1.4 is a category killing lens and the 70-200 isn’t far off the very best. That comes at a price in cost and weight so they are as heavy as necessary. The 50 as you say is indeed a category killer. The 70-200 DFA*, not so much. Its IQ is on par with a well centered and calibrated Tamron. I've always wondered why it's so heavy when you have a similar amount of elements. On a side note, I used to own the plastic-barreled Tamron branded 70-200 and felt for the price, was a very good optically. The Pentax version is a hair better. The areas where the Pentax version really excels is its weatherability (used in the pouring rain once) and focus motors. Apart from that, nothing else really stands out except its heft.