Smallest D-SRL + 2.8 standard zoom combo?

<p>Hi. I have always use Canon EOS line (pretty happy with it). My base equiptment is an 40D + EF 17-55 2.8 zoom. In the past I didn't have any problem with it but now it has became quite bulky for casual street / vacation purposes.<br />I am thinking on swapping the 40D for a new SL1 or Rebel, but the 2.8 Canon zoom is still quite bulky.<br />Despite being "a Canon guy", I am looking if Nikon or Sony have better alternatives (better means smaller without sacrifying image quality). I narrow Nikon/Sony because other brands are rare in my country.<br />Please, I don't want to change to a mirrowless or something like that, nor do I like to use primes. I want to keep myself in the D-SLR + 2.8 zoom world but looking for the smaller combo possible. I could live with a 4.0 (constant aperture) zoom as an alternative.<br />The Sony 16-50 2.8 lens + Alpha A body seems smaller than the 17-55 2.8, and around the same price. Any alternatives?<br />Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Pablo, if weight and size are the issue, I can honestly say the 18-55 IS is a pretty decent lens. OK, it's not constant aperture, but if you can live with at least f/5.6, I think you will find the lens weighs almost nothing. I have mostly L lenses, but I bought this surprisingly good little lens exactly for the purpose of being small and light for when I didn't want to carry lots of bulk. It's been a relatively decent lens for that purpose. It's certainly not my "go to" lens when I'm shooting more seriously, but for casual/vacation use, it's done very well for me. I think it would be magnificent in this regard on a rebel. (I use mine on a 40D.)</p>

<p>The Nikon 17-55/2.8 is a "pro" quality type lens, translate that to mean heavy and large. However, there are some third party f2.8 lenses from Tamron and Sigma that aren't as robust and can save you some weight and bulk, if perhaps at some cost in image quality - and a concurrent savings in price as well. The recent "entry" level and mid range dslrs from Nikon and Canon are very competent, (and I expect the Sony dslts are as well). You do trade some functionality and/or convenience away to get to the smaller sizes and prices, though. </p>

<p>As Sarah has suggested, the bundled lenses can be pretty good performers and at a serious savings in size and cost. Searching for "Camera A (or lens A) review" will return quite a few hits many of which are useful or at least can be considered.</p>

<p>FWIW I recently went on a trip using a mirrorless and "kit" lens and much of the time, it did just fine. Mirrorless or dslr, there were times where the slower "kit" lens was clearly struggling to keep up with darker light, interiors, etc., even with the higher performing high iso body. So, the subject matter you are chasing might mean you want to stick to faster lenses over the lighter alternatives.</p>

 

<p>You could just stick with Canon and get a Tamron 17-50 for the smaller size.</p>

<p>I purchased an SL1 for my daughter. It is a pleasure to use, and the touch-screen interface works quite well, even for the parent of a teenager. I put the Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake lens on and the whole setup is pocketable, and so much fun.<br>

<br />Just about perfect for casual/vacation use.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>The SL1 is about as small and light as a DSLR gets. Not too heavy and very sharp are the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with or without VC. The smallest and lightest Nikon would be the D3200 and D3300. The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a big heavy lens. You can use the Tamron or Sigma with the D3200 or D3300 for a light weight combination.</p>

<p>Between the Sigma and the Tamron I bought the Sigma because it focuses faster. I had the Tamron w/o VC and it often focused slowly and hunted. The Sigma is quick and quiet.</p>

<p>Thank you very much to all. After long researching, it seems that changing system to SONY Alpha is not a reasonable idea. Sony's bodies have good reviews with good diferentiators (such as better video AF) but it seems that they are not fully ready for prime leagues yet.<br>

I have never used non-Canon lenses but an SL1 / Rebel paired with a Tamron 17-50 (much smaller than Canon's) seems a very good set.</p>