Calling all big lens users

[kiwi]

If they weigh you simply take the heaviest camera and heaviest lens and wear them around your neck, then shove your pockets with the other heavy things, cant do a thing about that then

[Burnman]

My 2c on this thread:

If you intend to walk more than 100m with a big lens and handhold, a 200 or 300 are the only really viable options. I have a 400 2.8. Unbelievable lens. But it does weigh a ton. Walking and attempting to shoot with it in overcast or darker conditions means your at 2.8 or higher iso. Its a hard lens to get pin sharp on handheld on a d800. On DX bodies its less critical. With a mono or tripod its a different story.

I have an 80-200 2.8 which is brilliant, but recently purchased a 200 2.0. Most would dismiss this lens as its not as "long" as the big boys or too similar to a zoom. While this chubby lens is certainly still a big boy by big lens standards, that extra stop over the zoom makes ALL the difference in the world. I rarely use the zoom anymore. The 200 (3kg) is no lightweight - its far more hand holdable than my 400. The extra stop of light means backgrounds blow out into nothing. The results are stunning. Your subject pops out of the frame regardless of the business of the background!

Couple this lens with teleconvertors, or a DX body, and the reach jumps to a 300 equivalent, and still faster than say a 300 F4. I cannot more highly recommend this particular lens for any wildlife or portraiture work. The additional flexibility by hand holding it allows you to get much closer to wildlife than lugging a mono or tripod along. I need not lament on about the sharpness as that goes without saying

[Miss Jane]

Finally I have bought a sigma 120-300 f2.8! It's a monster in size and weight. I will try it out this weekend for the first time. One question for anyone else who has one, is the zoom stiff to move? Mine takes a bit of effort to zoom it in or out.

[Sifor]

The zoom ring of mine has more resistance than the focusing ring, although not by a great deal. It is moving big pieces of glass around, so a bit of resistance in the zoom ring is expected.

[kiwi]

The lens used to be initially quite stiff to zoom but it got "better" over time

[ameerat42]

Does it have a zoom lock? If so, engage it when you're just carrying it around. My 50-500 tends to creep out if lock is left off. My experience is rather like Troy's (Sifor).
Am.

[Sifor]

The 120-300 2.8 is completely internal focus and zoom, so it doesn't require a zoom lock.

[Pixley]

I should not have read this thread - I now want both the 200-400 f4 and the 300 f2.8! Off to start saving some serious cash

[Miss Jane]

Now after a weekend of using it I have found that it is easier to zoom in and out when it is on a tripod. There is a tiny bit of play when attached to the camera which now looks tiny in comparison. And the focus ring is a pain in the butt because it is opposite place to the nikon and i keep moving it unintentionally.
I still love my 80-200 2.8.

[oneeyedphoto]

Like the Burnman post above, I have had the 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S & was lucky enough to recently get hold of a used, but pristine 200/f2 VR1 model. Both take my 1.7TC. Still testing out the 'Fatboy' on my cropped D7000, but early reports suggest the zoom might not get back on my camera! God, that bokeh, there's just nothing to describe it.