Lens weight: I have a Canon t1i that I use with a Simca 18X200 telephoto. Does anyone know if the Canon 18X200 lens is lighter in weight? This has become a bear to carry around until I...

tmorgen Loc: Palm Bay, FL

I have a Canon t1i that I use with a Simca 18X200 telephoto. Does anyone know if the Canon 18X200 lens is lighter in weight? This has become a bear to carry around until I carry it by hand. I also have a Nikon L830 which I tend to use more now than I did the Canon. Would I have been better off using a Canon lens instead of the Simca? The Canon is heavy even with the 18X55 that came with it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

tmorgen wrote:

I have a Canon t1i that I use with a Simca 18X200 telephoto. Does anyone know if the Canon 18X200 lens is lighter in weight? This has become a bear to carry around until I carry it by hand. I also have a Nikon L830 which I tend to use more now than I did the Canon. Would I have been better off using a Canon lens instead of the Simca? The Canon is heavy even with the 18X55 that came with it.

B&H, and probably other sites, give the specs of photo gear, including weight.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Mount_Canon+EOS&ci=274&N=4288584247+4261208189+4108103567

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Dude, what are you talking about my ten year old packs the T1i, Just kidding, for actual weight consult manufactures specifications. I have used the 18-200 and tend to like a more moderate zoom range. I am not familiar with Simca brand. My favorite on crop is the 15-85 Efs.

J. R.

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

tmorgen wrote:

I have a Canon t1i that I use with a Simca 18X200 telephoto. Does anyone know if the Canon 18X200 lens is lighter in weight? This has become a bear to carry around until I carry it by hand. I also have a Nikon L830 which I tend to use more now than I did the Canon. Would I have been better off using a Canon lens instead of the Simca? The Canon is heavy even with the 18X55 that came with it.

Go to the respective websites, check specs and find out for yourself. A little research, please.

tmorgen Loc: Palm Bay, FL

Thanks. I have been thinking of an 18X135 instead of the 200. My experience with shooting distance with digital can become an issue of not enough light. The Nikon does a good job but I have some issues with it. I have a special attachment to use filters and I like to use a Polarizer and with the Nikon attachment, I do not have the full range of the telephoto which narrows down to make it look like I am shooting through a pipe.

tmorgen Loc: Palm Bay, FL

Sorry to have bothered you. I'll direct any questions elsewhere in the future.

cosmo54 Loc: Easton, PA but will travel for photos

tmorgen wrote:

Sorry to have bothered you. I'll direct any questions elsewhere in the future.

Hi. Just ignore the negative comments.....some people are just cranky and it is sooooo easy to be annoying over the internet. :-)

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I have used the 18-135 and it was a great lens.

Take everything on UHH with a grain of salt.

Also I find that a great camera strap (OpTech Pro) not carried only around my neck lightens the load. I am 71 and have had spine issues.

J. R.

tmorgen wrote:

Thanks. I have been thinking of an 18X135 instead of the 200. My experience with shooting distance with digital can become an issue of not enough light. The Nikon does a good job but I have some issues with it. I have a special attachment to use filters and I like to use a Polarizer and with the Nikon attachment, I do not have the full range of the telephoto which narrows down to make it look like I am shooting through a pipe.

Camlane Loc: North Carolina

ottopj wrote:

Go to the respective websites, check specs and find out for yourself. A little research, please.

If you don't have an respectful answer, it is not necessary that you reply.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

cosmo54 wrote:

Hi. Just ignore the negative comments.....some people are just cranky and it is sooooo easy to be annoying over the internet. :-)

Indeed. Now to nswer your question TM, the Canon 18-200 is 1.3# and the Sigma 18-200 is 1.8#. ;)

tmorgen Loc: Palm Bay, FL

In case someone else has a similar question, I went to the B&H Site and according to them, the Canon lens is heavier than the Simca which is heavier than a Tamron. The difference between the Tamron which is the lightest and the Canon which is the heaviest is about 1/2 lb. The answer to my problem may just be a visit to a good Chiropractor. A day with my Canon is brutal to my neck! Any thoughts or suggestions from the group would be appreciated but please, don't put yourselves out looking for an answer.
Ted

tmorgen Loc: Palm Bay, FL

Thanks, using the B&H site, they have the Canon at 1.31lbs and the Simca at 15.02 oz They show the
Tamron at 14.02 oz. This is why I posted the question. I prefer the answers from the group over those of a sales catalogue.

My skin is not that thin. Call me anything but late for dinner. :-D

Ron 717 Loc: Pennsylvania

tmorgen wrote:

Sorry to have bothered you. I'll direct any questions elsewhere in the future.

Please don't let the disrespectful opinions of some on here prevent you from participating in the UHH discussions. Some just get out of bed in a bad mood.

cosmo54 Loc: Easton, PA but will travel for photos

tmorgen wrote:

In case someone else has a similar question, I wen... (show quote)

Ted - check out Optech (and other mfgs) for a camera harness or sling strap. Takes the weight off your neck. I prefer Optech brand for lots of reasons....especially because they are made in USA.

jgitomer Loc: Skippack Pennsylvania

Gifted One wrote:

Also I find that a great camera strap (OpTech Pro) not carried only around my neck lightens the load. I am 71 and have had spine issues.

J. R.

I too use the OpTech strap and find that it made a big difference. Before you spend the money for a lens invest in an OpTech strap and I believe you will find that you don't need a lighter lens to be comfortable.

Jerry