Best Compact Zoom Lens for Canon 5D Mk2 ?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by art_major, Sep 14, 2010.

  1. My 24-70mm 2.8L is getting to heavy to carry around. what the best compact zoom lens for a canon 5d mk2? third party lenses are ok as well. thank you!.
  2. How is the Canon 28-200mm USM? it sounds really awful.
  3. I've got the Tamron 28-75 2.8. My only non L lens. It's sharp, fast, and light. (on a 5D Mk II)
  4. Unfortunately, there aren't any decent EF standard zooms that are very light in weight or compact in size. But the 24-105/4 L IS comes in at 670g, which is admittedly 280g lighter than your 24-70.
    Have you considered getting a prime or two? The 24/2.8 weighs only 270g, the 35/2 is a measly 210g, the 50/1.4 is 290g, and the 85/1.8 is 425g, and they're all compact.
  5. Yep, you can't beat primes for portability.
  6. yea, i know you cant beat the primes. i have most of the L primes. just wondered of there was anything small light and "ok"
  7. The Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 is 540g - a bit lighter than the 24-105/4 and almost half the weight of the 24-70/2.8. I haven't used it, most reviews I've read are generally positive.
    I'm fond of this review site, which might be useful to you:
  8. I like the Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM. Very compact, sharp, great range. It was discontinued a year or so ago, but there are used ones floating around.
  9. You cannot beat the combo 5D II + 24-105... A great quality walkaround setup!
  10. 24-105L, 28-135, 28-105 II. In order of decreasing weight ;-)
  11. What would you be shooting with the 5D MKII and a lightweight zoom lens? By considering going that way, you seem to be wanting a lightweight "package" for walking around and taking pictures without being burden by the heavy zoom and camera.
    To me, it seems you should be looking at the current crop of micro 4/3 cameras and small compact cameras with APS-C size sensors.
  12. "OK" is a fairly subjective concept as a stated goal, so I'm going to brainstorm and think outside the box.
    I had the 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS when it first came out and thought it was OK, but once I tried an L, I never went back. My copy was fairly soft and I was never really happy with it. YMMV.
    A more general version of Paulo Bizarro's question: are you really just looking for a lightweight point and shoot or 4/3 camera for those occasions when carrying all the gear just isn't desireable?
    Alternately, would a crop body help? You could put together a 'small kit' if it were financially feasible for you.
    The crop would open up other zoom options. If it were just for occasional use, you could even get a used Rebel and the old EF 17-35mm f/2.8L USM Lens (my copy is great and you keep the L badge and 77mm filter thread.)
    Hope you find what you are looking for!
  13. It's really hard to beat the 24-105/4, although even that (mounted on my 5D) gets heavy on very long hikes.
    I've wrestled with this issue of weight too, because I'm getting older and slightly arthritic. I wanted something to carry with me "always," with the intent that I would pull out my heavier gear when I was specifically out for photography's sake. My first approach wasn't a different lens, but rather a different lens/camera combination. I bought a 40D, which I felt I neede anyway, and I put an 18-55IS lens on it. The lens is TINY and feather-light, and it's actually not half bad optically. In hind-sight, I would have probably gotten one of the Rebels to go with that lens.
    That camera/lens combo was still a bit heavy and bulky to carry 24/7, so I lightened even further. I went straight to the G11. It's been a good little camera.
  14. I second Jeff's recommendation of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I use it on my 5d2 and it's really quite nice. Keeping weight down is often important to me and I don't want to haul around a Canon 24-70. I'm also thinking of picking up the Canon 28-135 for hiking in/around the mountains where I need more reach to isolate distant peaks. I'm hoping it will compare favorable to my Tamron, but obviously I won't know until I have one.
  15. I don't know how we can answer this post. Best compact zoom? What focal range? 17-40? 24-105? 28-75? 11-16? They're all compact and totally different.
  16. 24-105L, 28-135, 28-105 II. In order of decreasing weight ;-)
    Also in order of decreasing quality. I've had all three over the years (well, I had the seven-blade version of the "first generation" 28-105, but the II is identical internally). The 28-105 is a decent consumer-grade standard zoom. The 28-135 is definitely better optically and adds IS (but also adds some size, weight, and cost). The 24-105 is definitely another step up optically, and of course brings build quality up to professional levels (and, again, adds some bulk and cost).
    If you're accustomed to the professional quality of the 24-70, the only one of these three I'd recommend is the 24-105 unless you're certain you're willing to take a step down from pro lenses.
    The approach of getting a smaller, lighter second set of gear (whether a high-end compact, a smaller DSLR, or something between those) and leaving the 5D and 24-70 at home when you need a smaller, lighter camera is well worth considering. For instance, a 50D (or comparable) and the 15-85 would offer you a competent body and a well-regarded lens (at least the equal of the 28-135, and probably somewhere between it and the 24-105 optically) in a significantly smaller, lighter package; if you don't need some of the 50D's features for the type of work you'd be doing with this camera, you could shave quite a bit more weight by going with something from the higher end of the Rebel family.
  17. I've used many of the lenses mentioned over the years. Even the 28-200 (non USM in my case) which I have used with the 5D II - it's, well, a lens. It takes pictures. That's about as positive as I'll get about it...
    I used the 28-105 on film, and it was, as has been said, a decent consumer zoom. The 24-85 is similar but maybe a touch better - it is very compact, though. The 28-135 IS was my main lens in my last film days, and I was very happy with it on film. When digital arrived, I used it a bit with the 10D, and then started to use it with the 5D. I was disappointed, though - it seemed out of its depth. So I bought the 24-105L, and have been extremely happy with it on both the 5D and 5D II - it seems to work really well with the II.
  18. The 24-105 is not light or compact. The Tamron 28-75 is.
  19. definitely 24-105, if you also care the image quality
  20. What about the 16-35II depending on you FL needs? It's a good addition to F1.4 primes. I use it way more than my 24-105.
  21. I think Canon EF 24-105mm is a good choice. It's very versatile, light and produces great image sharpness throughout the range.Build quality is excellent as expected, the lens is quite compact and light.
  22. For OP, none of these are perfect, but my 2 cents;
    best IQ, descending order (and BTW all are less than 550g).

    Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 510g (can vignette on full frame cameras at f2.8, but much better when stopped down, includes a lens hood, has a 6 year warranty). Has a noisy auto-focus, but it is a fast f2.8! It is my current walk around lens.

    Canon 28-135mm IS f3.5-5.6 540g (can vignette on full frame cameras, gets much better when stopped down a little bit). Has IS, but it is a slow lens.

    Canon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 375g (can vignette on full frame cameras, much better at f5.6, obsolete, no longer made). A favorite lens of Canon EOS film cameras.

    Canon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 380g (can vignette on full frame cameras, much better at f5.6, obsolete, no longer made). It was my current walk around lens, but broke after 8 years of use. I really do miss the 24mm, on the wide angle of this lens! Replaced it with the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
    If more info is needed, just send me a PM.

Share This Page