L lens for a bad back

<p>I need a good walk around lens. The 24-70 I currently have is a great lens but it's a little heavy of my back which I injured years ago. I looked at the 24-105 but so many people have had problems with its soft (relatively speaking) focus and the 24-70 I find is tack sharp. As much as I use heating pads, stretching, chiropractic to deal with chronic back pain, I can't get around the discomfort felt after carrying around the 24-70. My 17-40 is much lighter but limited in range. This summer, we're going to Alaska and I'd like to spare my back if possible but want a good "L' lens. A longer range would help. The 24-105 would have been perfect but I would imagine that I'd greatly prefer the 24-70's quality. Looking for the right lens preferably under $1500.00. Any ideas.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>David</p>

<p>Use Digital Lens Optimization when you convert your Raw files and you'll be happy with the IQ of the 24-105mm.</p>

<p>Thanks David. I always shoot in Raw and use the latest version in photoshop. I'm also pretty skilled at using sharpening tools but I'd prefer to have as sharp a picture out of the box as I can. There's probably not a "right" lens and what I'll likely do is to figure out the greatest compromise. Ok, I realize I don't know what the digital optimizer is that you speak of. I'll check it out. Thanks Again! </p>

<p>Perhaps there were some quality control issues (or user issues), but I've seen very good reviews of the 24-105.<br>

If you love the 24-70, you may just want to look into the 24-70 2.8 II. The newer version is 145 grams lighter than the older version, making it just about a .3 of a pound heavier than the 24-105 (1.48lbs vs. 1.77 lbs.). Or the 24-70 f4L is 70grams less than the 24-105 and you get IS - although personally, I'd go with the 24-105 at that point.</p>

<p>I'm not talking about sharpening, but correction with each lens/body combination at each focal length and aperture combination. When using any zoom lens your going to experience different strong and weak points, where DLO minimizes these differences.</p>

<p>EF 24-105mm f/4L IS at f/11 and 24mm on a 5D MkII:</p>

<p><a title="Grand Canyon Snow by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6058/6338312347_7a4b54cc00_z.jpg" alt="Grand Canyon Snow" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>but so many people have had problems with its soft (relatively speaking) focus</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Ist es denn wirklich so, dass wir jeden Dreck, der vom Internet kommt, nu kopieren müssen?</em><br>

<em>with apologies to Walter Ulbricht<br /></em></p>

<p>David, as far as lenses go, you may want to look into the 24-70 f/4 IS L. But I found that the main factor determining discomfort is not the weight, it's how you carry it. Get a system (backpack or a waist pack) that puts all weight on your hips, not shoulders/neck. Although each injured back is injured in its own way, I found that I can carry relatively heavy loads (5D, 24-70, 70-200, water, snacks) all day if the weight sits on my hip, not shoulders. If you need to carry more than a camera and lens, I would suggest a backpack with a frame and good waist belt, big enough to transfer the weight to your hips but small enough so taking camera out and putting it back in is quick and easy. You may need to take you lens/camera combo, plus whatever weight you want to carry, and visit a local store that carries photo backpacks. Try them until you find one that can carry what you have such that your shoulders carry nearly no weight. Remember that when packing a backpack, the heavier stuff should go towards the top (may seem counterintuitive, but makes the load easier to carry). It may turn out to be a much better investment than a marginally lighter lens.</p>

<p>David, I know what you mean. I sold my older Canon 28-70 L because it was so heavy. But I was also a little sad to see it go as the IQ was special. I now use the 24-105 L which is not quite as sharp but is pretty good nonetheless. If I want the ultimate in sharpness I tend to reach for prime lenses.</p>

I think the answer is to change formats. I literally just got back from Alaska (you'll love it, btw) on Saturday. After years of toting around a

7D and 5DM2 with a stable of L lenses, I made the switch to m4/3 and took an Olympus OMD E-M1 and and E-M5. Amongst the lenses I

bought for this trip was an Olympus 12-40/2.8, which has similar specs to the Canon you are using now. I got great results. Any lousy

shots I got were my fault, not that of the gear. You can probably lose half the weight this way. Enjoy your trip!

<p>How about the 70-200 f4 IS. It is not as heave as the f2.8 version and lighter than your 24-70mm.</p>

<p>thanks everyone...i just can't change formats at this point in the game, I think Peter you are right about how one carries the weight, i do have a 70-200L (no IS) and I've never been fond of it...i'll look at the other lenses people have described...my best bet might be to convince one of my kids to carry a lens or two and stick with the 24-70 but i'm itching for a change...</p>

<p>David, I injured my lower back in an auto accident over 15 years ago. Required surgery, did the rehabilitation and all that stuff and got the T-shirt! <br>

Lens selection aside, . . . I have found a lot of truth in what Peter said,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>" But I found that the main factor determining discomfort is not the weight, it's how you carry it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Several years ago I invested in a good Lowepro backpack. Although no solid type frame, it has good shoulder straps, a very good waist strap and a chest strap. It distributes the weight well for me.<br>

Up until a couple of years ago I could spend the entire day walking around the City Zoo with it fully loaded at just under 40 pounds with Tripod. Not anymore! These days the backpack serves mostly for storage and only makes trips from the house to the car trunk and a few short hikes from parking lots to a few events. However, <br>

Over the last couple of years (related to the back injury with Arthritis & age) I suffer more with neck, shoulder discomfort and loss of strength in my left arm. I can't even tolerate the weight of a P&S hanging around my neck.<br>

I quit using Neck Straps and started to rely on Hand Straps to carry my Camera & Lens. <br>

I still take short hikes up to about a half mile with my 50D, grip & 100-400 attached.</p>

<p>Of course, a new lens is always nice!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess I can comment, since I have a 24-105 and a very bad back (with major surgery a couple of years ago). My sympathies about your back.</p>

<p>Yes, in my experience, how you carry it is a very big deal. I suggest looking into a cotton carrier vest. It seems rather awkward at first to wear something so substantial, but it is great for a bad back. It supports the camera in the center of your chest, with straps over both shoulders. The weight is symmetrical, which I find is very important. When my back is bothering me, I carry my camera that way and the rest of the stuff in a backpack so that the weight is symmetrical right to left and somewhat symmetrical back to front.</p>

<p>Now, for the 24-105: it's a nice lens. My one major complaint is that while the vignetting at the short end is trivial to fix, fixing it entails boosting exposure by quite a bit, which I don't like to do. Still, all in all, I find it a good walk-around lens, and other than my 100mm macro, it is on my camera more than any other lens.I don't know about the non-IS 70-200 f/4 (I've read that it is not as sharp as the IS version), but the 70-200 f/4 IS is a VERY sharp lens. I have had one for years and wouldn't trade it for any of the competitors. And it is quite light. So you might want to try one to see whether you want to trade up.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What Dan said. I have a Cotton Carrier and I can carry a 7d with a 100- 400 all day without putting any strain on my back. </p>

<p>You don't say whether full frame or crop. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is good ("L" quality, say many) and I believe it is lighter than the 24-70.</p>

<p>You could give up the zoom and get, say, 24IS/35IS/50, or 28IS and 50mm, or even lighter, the 24/28IS and 40mm pancake. Would save a lot of weight and allows you to mix and match. The current 24-70L ver 2 is smaller and lighter too, if you have ver 1.</p>

<p>I would try the 24-70/4 L IS in your shoes - Depending upon which body you own of course. You may want to try downsizing your camera body as well... Especially if you have a heavier unit now.</p>

<p>While 'how' you carry the weight IS important, I think I would be trying to find ways to minimize weight as well, so if you are using a 5D2 or 3 now, go down to a 6D, if a 7D, bump down to a 60D or a rebel. If a 1D(s)... well that probably caused your back problems ;) ...</p>

<p>Frankly though, In AK you'll want some longer reach than a 24-70 (even on the crop). In your situation, I would consider shooting with a 28-300 if shooting FF, or a 16-300 on crop (even better... BOTH are lighter than a 24-70/4L) Accepting the marginally decreased IQ is far far better than needing to get closer to them thar Grizzlies... Them are not happy go lucky animals. </p>

<p>Thanks again everyone...the cotton carrier is an interesting device...with it, I could probably carry a 24-70 lens...in a place like Alaska as Marcus just mentioned, I will look for a longer range and probably carry my 70-200 f4 with the 1.4 extender...i've flirted with the idea of the 70-300 L lens but it would be close to the same as the 70-200 (the 1.4 extender does not work on the 70-300...i would need a good enough reason to buy the 70-300 instead of just using the 70-200 with extender. I haven't found one yet. i definitely feel I need a zoom for the trip...i'll review the Loewro and cotton carrier with my chiropractor...thanks....David</p>

<p>I kinow that bad back problem all too well and much of my gym time revolves around back, abs and core stability work. Setting that aside, let's consider lenses.<br>

If the 24-105 is not to your liking, you might want to look at the new 24-70/4. I've tried it out at a trade fair and was quite impressed. It's 600g, so ~350g less than the older 2.8.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>How about the 28mm, 50mm and 100mm primes? Great quality, very lightweight and the total cost for all 3 is probably less than a 24-70mm L.</p>

<p>thanks Peter and Jamie for responding...right now I have the 24-70mm but it causes some back strain...the primes would be fine but I think the zooms offer more versatility in the field...i have an 85mm and the 135mm, great primes for things like portraits...i used to use the 85mm a lot as it is tack sharp with wonderful bokeh...</p>

<p>I'd encourage you to consider a 24-105mm. Mine is always on my 6D. I have the bad habit of pixel peeping and mine holds up very well. At similar focal lengths it compares favorably to my 70-200 4 IS and prime lenses. Maybe I'm lucky, but it's the one lens I wouldn't part with for its great image quality and versatility. </p>

<p>I wound up purchasing the 70-300mm...alone, it would increase my back strain but I plan of purchasing the cotton carrier to support the lens...i have a 5D but prefer to use a T3 as it's considerably lighter but I'll see what the backs like with the support...and thanks Aaron, it was a toss up between several lenses including the 70-200mm IS but I have the non-IS version and i think the 70-300mm will work well in Alaska...i also have a 17-40mm which is very lightweight and can be used for wide angle shots that I'll also bring along...thanks again everyone....David</p>

<p>In future I would recommend looking at switching to a m43 system like the OM-D. If you don't shoot fast moving subjects the m43 cameras are wonderful. Great quality, very small and light with a good selection of high quality lenses.</p>

It looks like you have increased your burden not reduced it.

I obviously didn't understand your question: I thought you

were looking for another lens in the 24-105mm range.