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!!!!
Happy Holidays to you as well!
It's been my observation that not too many APS-C and FF users complain directly about the weight of long telephoto lenses. Usually what I see is an acknowledgement that a specific lens - like a 300/2.8 - is too large and heavy for comfort, so the user acquires a 300/4 instead. I don't see that as "complaining" as much as realizing a smaller & lighter alternative is preferable.
As far as lens construction goes, there are optical design considerations that can be made in order to create a lighter lens that does not suffer optically.
Example 1:
Back in the 1980's, Tamron released the Tamron SP 200-500mm F/5.6 Model 31A, still a well-regarded lens considering its age. It weighs 2.7 kg and is 36cm long.
Currently, Nikon has the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, which covers the same range and has AF and Vibration Reduction built into it. It weighs 2.3 kg and is 27 cm long. Nikon's use of Extra Low Dispersion elements allows the lens to be sharper, with fewer aberrations and more features than the Tamron while also being lighter and smaller.
Example 2:
The HD PENTAX-DA 560mm F5.6 ED AW DC is 3kg and 52cm long. The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm F5.6E PF ED VR weighs 1.5 kg and is 24cm long - the Nikon is half the weight and half the length of the Pentax equivalent! Nikon used a Fresnel optical design (like what is found in lighthouses) to accomplish this feat. Canon is also using Fresnel optics. So there really is an alternative to lenses that have traditionally been very large and heavy.