Best Compact Zoom Lens for Canon 5D Mk2 ?

<p>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!.</p>

<p>How is the Canon 28-200mm USM? it sounds really awful.</p>

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)

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Yep, you can't beat primes for portability.</p>

<p>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"</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I'm fond of this review site, which might be useful to you:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>You cannot beat the combo 5D II + 24-105... A great quality walkaround setup!<br>

Alberto.</p>

24-105L, 28-135, 28-105 II. In order of decreasing weight ;-)

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>"OK" is a fairly subjective concept as a stated goal, so I'm going to brainstorm and think outside the box.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>Alternately, would a crop <em>body </em>help? You could put together a 'small kit' if it were financially feasible for you.<br>

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.)</p>

<p>Hope you find what you are looking for!</p>

<p>It's really hard to beat the 24-105/4, although even that (mounted on my 5D) gets heavy on very long hikes.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<cite>24-105L, 28-135, 28-105 II. In order of decreasing weight ;-)</cite>

 

<p>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).</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...<br>

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.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is not light or compact. The Tamron 28-75 is.</p>

<p>definitely 24-105, if you also care the image quality</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think <a href="http://amzn.to/cznPmT">Canon EF 24-105mm</a> 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.</p>

<p>For OP, none of these are perfect, but my 2 cents;</p>

<p>best IQ, descending order (and BTW all are less than 550g).<br /> <br /> 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 <strong>fast</strong> f2.8! It is my current walk around lens.<br /> <br /> 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 <strong>slow</strong> lens.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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</p>

<p>If more info is needed, just send me a PM.</p>