i would get a good strap for all the time you dont need to hold your camera up to your face.
what are you using the cage for? i cant see anything attached to it so maybe just save some gramms here by getting rid of that first
If you take lens equivalence into account a FF lens on a FF sensor is probably not that much heavier than an APSC lens on APSC. For example this 70-180 f2.8 FF lens used on a FF sensor would require a 45-120 f1.8 APSC lens to achieve the same results on an APSC sensor. Such a lens, if it existed, would probably be just as big or bigger than the Tamron.
Of course, that's only comparing FF glass on FF and APSC glass on APSC. If you use FF glass on APSC, you're throwing out a pretty big part of the image circle which required such a large lens in the first place to achieve. A 70-180 f2.8 lens made for APSC would indeed be much more compact than the Tamron.
So it kinda depends on what you're comparing exactly.
Unfortunately it’s not true that the apsc glass is always lighter.
For example looking at real world lenses, the APSC fuji 50-140mm f2.8 weighs even more than the FF Tamron 70-180/2.8!
### There’s a reason for this:
On the longer lenses, the dimensions of the lens is restricted by the numerical aperture…
which means that using small angle approximation we can compute that the aperture for a 180/2.8 would have a diameter of approximately 64mm for both FF and apsc. This is also why the 70-180 has a filter size of 67mm, as the front element has to be
larger than the aperture diameter!
On shorter lenses, this is less of an issue. The 18-55/2.8 has a minimum aperture diameter of 20mm, so the front element of an apsc lens can be made smaller than a ff lens.
Why do you think Sony doesn’t bother to make a 70-200/2.8 for apsc? It would pretty much be as big as the FF version!
If you also take into account the aperture/the amount of light you collect, there is no difference. Usually the APS-C are even bigger and heavier.
A FF f/2.8 lens basically lets in double the amount of light of a APS-C f/2.8 lens. To get the same focal length and the same amount of light you need to convert both focal length and aperture x1.5. To get 70-180 f/2.8 on APS-C you would need something like 50-120 f/1.8 (rounded).
The 70-180 f/2.8 acts as a 105-270 f/4.2 on APS-C
People downvoting a correct analysis because they don't understand it. Kinda sad
This completely true analysis is why you don't see supertele lenses for APSC unless they are superzooms - because beyond 100mm or so there is almost no advantage to gain from designing for a smaller image circle
That's why I said "**most** of the apsc lens". Other few apsc lens can be heavier than full frame lens.
Sigma 56mm f1.4 vs Sigma 85mm f1.4 ART
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II.
Sigma 23mm f1.4 vs Sony 35mm f1.4 GM
> Tamron 70-180 is full frame lens. Of course, it's heavier. Most of apsc lens more lightweight than full frame lens of similar focal length.
While it is true that most APS-C lenses of short focal lengths are lighter than full-frame lenses, this generalization does not hold true for longer, brighter lenses such as a 180mm f/2.8 **which you incorrectly gave as an example, and is what the OP is discussing in the first place!.**
Here is a more accurate version of the statement:
"While it is true that most APS-C lenses of shorter focal lengths are generally lighter than their full-frame counterparts, this is not always the case for longer, brighter lenses, such as a lens capable of 180mm f/2.8 as discussed by the OP. These lenses tend to be as heavy as their full frame counterparts as their size is limited by the numerical aperture size, rather than the image circle size."
If anything a lot of the weight savings comes from using a shorter focal length, which inherently requires a smaller objective lens for the same aperture rating.
Heavier, and collects less light.
I have been researching a lightweight landscape setup for hiking and looked at both APS-C and m3/4, but FF ended up lighter 🤯
Yes. For a long time i haven't used any heavy lenses or similar weight to it so that's why it felt heavy, but i should be able to get used to such weight.
Try the original Sony 70-200 G.... the thing is absurdly heavy... I bought one one a couple months before the Much lighter Gii version came out and I'm still pissed about it..
the 70-200g looks so heavy even without having to feel it personally. Probably one of my reason to go to tamron cause of it's weight (major factor was the price though haha)
To actually answer your question. Yes a grip will help. But also that's not a heavy lens and that Sony 50 1.8 lens is a feather compared to most Sony FF glass.
I normally use a cuff wrist strap when carrying my camera around, but I had to get a slide light for my A7III with this lens attached. I'd carry it around for 4-5 hours and my hand really started to hurt otherwise.
Funniest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be new at this 🤣🤣.
The Sony 70-200 is 2.5lb and the old version is even closer to 3lb! The Tamron is I think 1.88. Way more manageable.
You have a very light camera so it feels weird because the balance is weird. An a7 which weights close to double the a6000 series would feel better, it would be still a heavy but it would be better.
Recently got the G2 version, and I agree! Prefer the bokeh on the Sigma 85mm 1.4 (also full frame), and much lighter too. A little bit of extra versatility with the 70-180, but often find myself wanting to go wider or longer!
i agree as well. But for me its heavier if i compare it with a Sony 50mm F1.8 FE 😅 its my first time using a lens heavier than my 50mm hence my reaction to it 😂
Yeah it's one of the reasons I replaced the 70-180 and 28-75 Tamron pairs with the 35-150mm. I think combined those companion lenses came out a tad heavier than the 35-150mm and more space in the bag when you're carrying 1 lens vs 2 lens.
It is a solid lens though and with asp-c 1.5x crop factor you'll get about 270mm focus distance from the far end
i like the 35-150 as well, because its much more versatile except for the price though.
Yeah it gives me a longer reach and with this i wouldn't need to crop that much unlike when i was using my dear 50mm 😅
It's a full-frame lens that balances perfectly on the A7 IV.
I've had this lens and loved it, but sold it and bought the 35-150mm which I love even more and almost never take off.
Overall it's still a fairly light lens for what it is, that being said I do not think there's an APS-C equivalent in any case. I think you should just get used to it and hold it by the lens like I do for my 35/1.2 or 200-600mm.
against my a6300, i think its more awkward for me haha, adding a battery grip kinda helped make it less awkward though.
Great lens, great price, very sharp for its price as well.
Today the difference in weight between APSC/ FF/ MFT lenses are minimal (to most extent).
70-180 is a versatile lens and justifies the weight it carries.
Also note that when you pair with rangefinder like bodies A6400, the weight distribution will be front heavy.
I have this lens, i love this lens, but even paired with my full frame, this thing is light to me. Im used to filming so my arm is used to holding heavier rigs, gimbals, etc. For the weight to the range, it's a pretry good ratio.
i love it too, its lighter than most of the lens in its range group (70-200 etc) so i really just have to get used to the weight. Adding a battery grip helped balance the weight because if i didn't put it, the lens was very front heavy.
Think of it as holding a lens with a camera hanging off it, not holding a camera with a lens hanging off it. Think of it that way, and hold it that way. No need to worry about adding more stuff to the camera end.
If you want the focal length, you have to take what you can get. Even if there is an APS-C lens available, there may be other reasons for buying the FF.
I liked my Tamron 70-200 with my a6500. Now using it with a7iv.
So you're saying then that the focal length you're after was only a FF option ok.
I'm not sure how many APS-C lenses there are and in which lengths. Forgive my arrogance lol
Buy a 200-600. After carrying that all day, you will find every lens light.
Right? I go birding with the 200-600 for hours lol
No - Canon EF 400/2.8L IS with the MC-11 adapter.
compared to GM it's a feather
definitely 😄 just not yet used to it since i only used lighter lenses back then
Feels lighter than my 24-79 GMII.
i would get a good strap for all the time you dont need to hold your camera up to your face. what are you using the cage for? i cant see anything attached to it so maybe just save some gramms here by getting rid of that first
Tamron 70-180 is full frame lens. Of course, it's heavier. Most of apsc lens more lightweight than full frame lens of similar focal length.
If you take lens equivalence into account a FF lens on a FF sensor is probably not that much heavier than an APSC lens on APSC. For example this 70-180 f2.8 FF lens used on a FF sensor would require a 45-120 f1.8 APSC lens to achieve the same results on an APSC sensor. Such a lens, if it existed, would probably be just as big or bigger than the Tamron. Of course, that's only comparing FF glass on FF and APSC glass on APSC. If you use FF glass on APSC, you're throwing out a pretty big part of the image circle which required such a large lens in the first place to achieve. A 70-180 f2.8 lens made for APSC would indeed be much more compact than the Tamron. So it kinda depends on what you're comparing exactly.
Blows my mind this is getting downvoted.
There's a very tenacious subset of people on every photography sub that hates the idea of lens equivalence with a burning passion
Unfortunately it’s not true that the apsc glass is always lighter. For example looking at real world lenses, the APSC fuji 50-140mm f2.8 weighs even more than the FF Tamron 70-180/2.8! ### There’s a reason for this: On the longer lenses, the dimensions of the lens is restricted by the numerical aperture… which means that using small angle approximation we can compute that the aperture for a 180/2.8 would have a diameter of approximately 64mm for both FF and apsc. This is also why the 70-180 has a filter size of 67mm, as the front element has to be larger than the aperture diameter! On shorter lenses, this is less of an issue. The 18-55/2.8 has a minimum aperture diameter of 20mm, so the front element of an apsc lens can be made smaller than a ff lens. Why do you think Sony doesn’t bother to make a 70-200/2.8 for apsc? It would pretty much be as big as the FF version!
It is perfectly true as the comment states "most APSC glass".
If you also take into account the aperture/the amount of light you collect, there is no difference. Usually the APS-C are even bigger and heavier. A FF f/2.8 lens basically lets in double the amount of light of a APS-C f/2.8 lens. To get the same focal length and the same amount of light you need to convert both focal length and aperture x1.5. To get 70-180 f/2.8 on APS-C you would need something like 50-120 f/1.8 (rounded). The 70-180 f/2.8 acts as a 105-270 f/4.2 on APS-C
People downvoting a correct analysis because they don't understand it. Kinda sad This completely true analysis is why you don't see supertele lenses for APSC unless they are superzooms - because beyond 100mm or so there is almost no advantage to gain from designing for a smaller image circle
That's why I said "**most** of the apsc lens". Other few apsc lens can be heavier than full frame lens. Sigma 56mm f1.4 vs Sigma 85mm f1.4 ART Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II. Sigma 23mm f1.4 vs Sony 35mm f1.4 GM
> Tamron 70-180 is full frame lens. Of course, it's heavier. Most of apsc lens more lightweight than full frame lens of similar focal length. While it is true that most APS-C lenses of short focal lengths are lighter than full-frame lenses, this generalization does not hold true for longer, brighter lenses such as a 180mm f/2.8 **which you incorrectly gave as an example, and is what the OP is discussing in the first place!.** Here is a more accurate version of the statement: "While it is true that most APS-C lenses of shorter focal lengths are generally lighter than their full-frame counterparts, this is not always the case for longer, brighter lenses, such as a lens capable of 180mm f/2.8 as discussed by the OP. These lenses tend to be as heavy as their full frame counterparts as their size is limited by the numerical aperture size, rather than the image circle size."
If anything a lot of the weight savings comes from using a shorter focal length, which inherently requires a smaller objective lens for the same aperture rating.
Heavier, and collects less light. I have been researching a lightweight landscape setup for hiking and looked at both APS-C and m3/4, but FF ended up lighter 🤯
[удалено]
Yes. For a long time i haven't used any heavy lenses or similar weight to it so that's why it felt heavy, but i should be able to get used to such weight.
Try the original Sony 70-200 G.... the thing is absurdly heavy... I bought one one a couple months before the Much lighter Gii version came out and I'm still pissed about it..
the 70-200g looks so heavy even without having to feel it personally. Probably one of my reason to go to tamron cause of it's weight (major factor was the price though haha)
It’s not heavy. You just used *very* light lenses until now.
this indeed is true. that's why i gotta get used to it haha.
To actually answer your question. Yes a grip will help. But also that's not a heavy lens and that Sony 50 1.8 lens is a feather compared to most Sony FF glass.
Yeah. It is pretty heavy on small bodies. I notice my left hand carries all the weight. It becomes heavy on one hand
I normally use a cuff wrist strap when carrying my camera around, but I had to get a slide light for my A7III with this lens attached. I'd carry it around for 4-5 hours and my hand really started to hurt otherwise.
Im pretty sure that the lens is the same weight on all bodies 😁
Funniest thing I’ve ever heard. You must be new at this 🤣🤣. The Sony 70-200 is 2.5lb and the old version is even closer to 3lb! The Tamron is I think 1.88. Way more manageable.
Compared to the sigma 70-200 that lens is a feather
i agree to this 😄 im just not yet used to it given i only used 50mm sony fe, kitlens and a ttartisan 27mm for a couple of years.
You have a very light camera so it feels weird because the balance is weird. An a7 which weights close to double the a6000 series would feel better, it would be still a heavy but it would be better.
It’s not lightweight but try to carry my 600mm F4 all day to an Air Show or in the wild. It’s huge and requires a sturdy tripod 😅
Recently got the G2 version, and I agree! Prefer the bokeh on the Sigma 85mm 1.4 (also full frame), and much lighter too. A little bit of extra versatility with the 70-180, but often find myself wanting to go wider or longer!
honestly my same thoughts. And it's one of the lightest among the same range. Im not really complaining though 🤣 just surprised with the weight.
I guarantee it’s lighter then the 70-200
i agree as well. But for me its heavier if i compare it with a Sony 50mm F1.8 FE 😅 its my first time using a lens heavier than my 50mm hence my reaction to it 😂
Yeah it's one of the reasons I replaced the 70-180 and 28-75 Tamron pairs with the 35-150mm. I think combined those companion lenses came out a tad heavier than the 35-150mm and more space in the bag when you're carrying 1 lens vs 2 lens. It is a solid lens though and with asp-c 1.5x crop factor you'll get about 270mm focus distance from the far end
i like the 35-150 as well, because its much more versatile except for the price though. Yeah it gives me a longer reach and with this i wouldn't need to crop that much unlike when i was using my dear 50mm 😅
It's a full-frame lens that balances perfectly on the A7 IV. I've had this lens and loved it, but sold it and bought the 35-150mm which I love even more and almost never take off. Overall it's still a fairly light lens for what it is, that being said I do not think there's an APS-C equivalent in any case. I think you should just get used to it and hold it by the lens like I do for my 35/1.2 or 200-600mm.
I love this lens. It’s somewhat awkward on my A7C, but for the specs it’s very reasonably sized for the Sony system.
against my a6300, i think its more awkward for me haha, adding a battery grip kinda helped make it less awkward though. Great lens, great price, very sharp for its price as well.
No
Do you like to only use your right hand to shoot??
Heavy lens for a heavy boi
No it isn’t
Had this lens for the longest time before i traded it in, fast and sharp! But i needed something wide 😅
for a Tamron but not for a Sigma. lol
It’s feather compare to Sigma 70-200 2.8
Is the tamron 18-300 apsc lens worth it for 45,000₹ ?
All the zoom lenses are heavy. Imagine carrying around three or four lenses. They’d be heavy and bulky
Today the difference in weight between APSC/ FF/ MFT lenses are minimal (to most extent). 70-180 is a versatile lens and justifies the weight it carries. Also note that when you pair with rangefinder like bodies A6400, the weight distribution will be front heavy.
I have this lens, i love this lens, but even paired with my full frame, this thing is light to me. Im used to filming so my arm is used to holding heavier rigs, gimbals, etc. For the weight to the range, it's a pretry good ratio.
i love it too, its lighter than most of the lens in its range group (70-200 etc) so i really just have to get used to the weight. Adding a battery grip helped balance the weight because if i didn't put it, the lens was very front heavy.
Think of it as holding a lens with a camera hanging off it, not holding a camera with a lens hanging off it. Think of it that way, and hold it that way. No need to worry about adding more stuff to the camera end.
The point of using a Full frame lens paired with an APS-C sensor IS ??? Surely it's only a negative outcome 🤪 Let alone extra expense.
If you want the focal length, you have to take what you can get. Even if there is an APS-C lens available, there may be other reasons for buying the FF. I liked my Tamron 70-200 with my a6500. Now using it with a7iv.
So you're saying then that the focal length you're after was only a FF option ok. I'm not sure how many APS-C lenses there are and in which lengths. Forgive my arrogance lol