How much weight would you let hang off the camera body?

[sk66]

With my bigger lenses they usually have a strap on the lens and the camera body hangs from the lens, but my 70-200 (~ 3.5#) doesn't have that capability. I've been running around using it handheld and it just seems like too much weight on the camera mount. To overcome this I moved my R-strap mount to the lens foot and ordered another R-strap mount that I can leave fixed to the camera body (actually to a spider plate mounted on the body).

Is there even reason to be concerned? (I'm thinking there is as I can feel the lens racking in the mount when unsupported) Used to be a lens of this size/weight was (almost) always mounted to a tripod/monopod so this is a little new to me.

With a typical strap the lens would "have to" hang from the body so what do you do? All that racking has got to add to the wear and eventually affect alignment of all those little electrical contacts....

[RichardTaylor]

With my Canon 70-200 F5 L (705g or 25oz) I don't even think about it.

With my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (3.1 lbs. or 1,380g) I do.
It's almost always on a mono pod or I hold the lens itself (never have draped it over my shoulder)

This pro (at a motor racing event) doesn't seem to worry with what is most likely a 70-200 on his right shoulder, but he is holding the 600 (I think) by the lens.

[sk66]

That 600 has strap mounts on it...might not even have a body attached...
I think the 70-200 (4lb) range might be the "break point" of when one should be concerned...(And the more money you make with your gear the less you worry about the gear and the more you worry about getting the shot.)
I expose my gear to "hard treatment", but to have a $2k lens destroy a $4k camera body and smash to the ground from sheer stupidity/negligence would not make me happy...

[Ambrosia76]

Even with my small lenses I never let it just hang around my neck. I usually have one hand under it at all time supporting the lens and camera body. Hubby asked why I even use the camera strap. Duh so if my hands slips.

[ravncat]

I use R-strap by lensfoot if the lens has one...

[sk66]

Originally Posted by ravncat

I use R-strap by lensfoot if the lens has one...

Kind of makes sense...use the foot if it has one, use the lens strap mounts if it has them....but I have smaller lighter lenes with a foot (e.g. 150mm macro) where it's really not necessary...
Actually, the only lenses I have without a foot/strap mount are under 100mm.....except my 28-300, but all are under 2#

[Biomech]

I use a sniper strap. When I have my 70-200 f2.8 (1.33kg) on I do worry and move the strap to the lens foot.

[daft_biker]

No problems hanging a 300mm f/2.8 and teleconvertor off my camera and walking about the woods. If it fell apart I'd shout at Canon.

The tripod rings are there to put the centre of gravity over the tripod for stability. I can't imagine why they'd make big lenses with IS if the mount wasn't strong enough to cope with handheld use.

....might be a bit way of cameras made of plastic though....

[TBrown00]

I'm not too worried about this since I carry the camera over my shoulder with the lens facing towards my body with the original nikon strap. This causes the lens to point down and takes the stress off the lens mount. It's over the shoulder like in the pic of the pro above except the lens mount points towards my body instead of away from it. This also keeps it from sticking out and hitting things as I walk

[wulf]

Apart from my most light weight lenses, I tend to support the camera AND lens by cupping the point where they join in my hand as I walk round. If I haven't got a spare hand to do that, I haven't got a spare hand to shoot and so I'll put the camera away.

With a very lightweight camera like my D40, this seems doubly important but it is mainly about finding and supporting the coupled lens and body at the centre of gravity.

Wulf