20D and tired of weight

[pedro_sincleir]

Hi folks, my question is really simple:

 

I have a 20D and Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8, but I?m getting tired of weight.

I saw some alternatived:

Sigma 18-50mm

Sigma 18-125mm

 

What can you tell about this lenses?

 

thank you very much.

[henry_minsky1]

the 18-125 is OK at the wide end, but not really that great overall.

 

I recommend the Sigma 18-50 for a wide-angle zoom. It is smaller and lighter than the 17-40L, but is comparable in many ways in image color and contrast and sharpness.

[PuppyDigs]

If you're willing to compromise a bit on speed and image quality, the Canon EF 24-85 3.5

-4.5 USM makes for a darn tootin' travel lens. If you want to remain in L territory, the EF

17-40 4L USM is pretty light, but you won't be able to use the popup flash.

Unfortuately, carrying a

Speedlite would put you back where you started from weight-wise.

 

When I want to go really light, I mount my EF 24 2.8 or EF 35 2.0 and can go all day.

 

I owned 6 Sigma lenses dating from the mid to late 90s. None of them worked when I

bought a new body. Only one, the Sigma 50 2.8 EX Macro had a ROM replacement chip

available. The rest I had to sell cheap on Ebay. Sigmas aren't a good investment if you

upgrade bodies often.

 

You could start weight training and keep your lens. I've been working out 6 days a week

since last August and can hump a lot more gear than I used to.

[kbreak]

yeah, tell me about it.

 

I HAD a Sigma EOS 28 1.8 and it sure would've been nice to be able to use it on a digital body.

 

meh

[wakeforce]

I can send my digital rebel and 18-55 your way if you want to send me this combo =)

 

I might even put a bit of cash to palliate the difference in value. Would 100$ be good for you?

[ky2]

Your options (Seriously):<br>

<ul>

<li>Sell your 20D and buy an XT.</li>

<li>Sell your L and buy a cheapo 18-xx zoom.</li>

<li>(1) + (2).</li>

<li>Tie a dozen helium-filled baloons to the whole contraption.</li>

<li>Sign up for gym.</li>

</ul>

[jim_mueller2]

Like Puppy Face, I adore the 24/2.8. It's light and sharp and fast and has no distortions and is a joy to use. I simply bring 2 lenses with me when I want to trave light, a 24/2.8 on the 300D and a 50/1.8 in the cargo pocket of my jeans.

 

Think light, go prime!

[pbizarro]

the reason your lens is heavy is because it has good glass in it. If you want to travel lighter, then the 24-85 is a good zoom for the money, as has been suggested.

 

A couple of primes, e.g. 28 1.8 and 85 1.8, would be the alternative.

[jimstrutz]

Sigma makes two 18-50mm lenses, I believe. I got the f/2.8 EX version, and it's a nice lens. Sharpness is reasonable wide open, but better at f/4 or 5.6. I think it's a better choice for a 20D than the 28-70mm f/2.8L, since the L lens isn't wide enough, it's a lot less size and weight than the L, and covers the critical 28-75mm equivalent range. It may, or may not, have trouble with future EOS cameras, I'll worry about that later. For $420 it's a good lens for now.

 

As mentioned, the 18-125mm Sigma is generally seens as acceptably sharp up to 80mm or so, but like a lot of super zooms, not so sharp at the long end. Plus it's aperture is rather small at 125mm. But it's got a nice zoom range & makes a good walk around lens for any 1.6/1.5 crop camera.

 

But the 20D will still be heavy. If you want lighter, get a 350D/Drebel XT. With the 18-55mm kit lens, it's a great small camera.

[medina photography cherry]

I will trade you for my Tamron 28-75 2.8. It is very sharp and very light (compared to the 28-70 2.8L)

[ilkka]

What about the XT with 17-85? Quite a good lens and a light body with image quality to match the 20D.

[bob_a]

"...20D will still be heavy. If you want lighter, get a 350D/Drebel XT..."

 

The 20d is ONLY 200 grams heavier. Half a can of coke. Is that heavy?

[maxasst]

There are other alternatives before giving up a magnificent lens. Have you tried using a hand strap? It makes a significant difference to me since holding the camera with it is more passive and helps me avoid fatigue of the forearm muscles. Also, if the weight is bothering the neck, try a different neck strap. I have a Lowe Pro neck strap that I think is neoprene with hemmed edges and dotted with rubber so it stays put on the neck and when walking around, it has a bit of give or springiness such that I don't feel the weight as much. It's amazing how much better it feels compared to the standard Canon strap although they are roughly the same width.

[ben_lanterman1]

I have Canon 1Ds and 1DMkII series cameras and L lenses and don't find

them too much weight for most things - my heart doc tells me to exercise with

hand weights which weigh more than the cameras and it's supposed to be

good for me!

 

However I get tired too and so bought a Nikon 8800 P&S. I would have

bought a Canon version but they don't make one as good. It has good

resolution and a great lens, ~35-350, and weighs nothing. At reasonable

print sizes (8x10) it is a good compromise that actually doesn't compromise

much. The only down side is the very low ISO range and lack of

responsiveness compared to a SLR.

 

I have found having the two ranges of cameras to be very useful, there are

times when the big camera is simply too much - bulk and attention getting -

and the Nikon is the way to go.

 

It is capable of making some very nice photos.

[yakim_peled1]

Good lenses, and especially good zoom lenses are heavy. As others said, you either compromise on max aperture and image quality and buy cheaper zooms or compromise on zoom convenience and go primes. Most Canon primes in the 24-135 range (excluding the 135/2L and 100 macros) are very light. Some are so light that I find them to be too light. I like a bit of heft.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[matthew_bennett]

Go for the prime lens (non-L), you will get as good image quality as L zoom for F2.8 and above and will be lighter than L zoom. 28 F1.8 and 85 f1.8 seem to be good suggestions (film). Digital 24mm 2.8 and 50 mm F1.8 or F1.4 or F2.5 (macro).

 

The choice is yours...