Lightweight 5D lens

[rich_burdett]

<p>Going to France again this summer, and I don't want to lug my lovely 24-70 around again. It's a great lens, but weighs a ton. So I'm looking for a lightweight zoom suggestion for my 5D. Obviously, I'm going to be sacrificing a bit of quality, but any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.<br>

Thanks!</p>

[jcolwell]

<p>I use the 24-105/4L IS for exactly that purpose, and it does a fine job.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is smaller and lighter. You won't sacrifice any image quality. I've done extensive comparison between my Canon L 24-70 f/2.8 and my Tamron: large prints, pixel peeping, at f/2.8, in the center, on the edge, etc... Besides the weight and size the only significant differences I see is that the Canon L flares more easily, and the Tamron is at least 1/3rd stop brighter when compared to the same f/# on the L.</p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

Another vote for the 24-105L :)

[greg_neighbors1]

<p>I vote Canon 24-105L ! It's a great combination of zoom (wide and far) , weight, and quality. And since its an L lens, it will go great with your full frame 5D! I carried one on my last trip through the American Southwest and I was pleased with the results.</p>

<p>-<a href="http://www.gregneighbors.com">Greg Neighbors</a></p>

<div></div>

[zml]

<p>24-105/4L is a good suggestion but consider also Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It is a good, inexpensive lightweight lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tamron is at least 1/3rd stop brighter when compared to the same f/# on the L</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you explain this one..?</p>

[anov]

<p>The older and discontinued EF 28-70 f/3.5-4-5 is quite sharp, reasonably fast, and much, much lighter and smaller. You have to live with AFD motor and rotating front element though, plus it only goes to 28 instead of 24. Also this lens does not change length during focusing or zooming.<br>

The more modern EF 24-85 is also pretty good, has ring USM and quite good. This was my mainstay lens with film.</p>

[psoriano]

<p>The Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4. weights just 375g, the Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM 380g. Those are really lightweight, about 300g less than 24-105 f/4L.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>I sold the 24-105L and have been using the 24-85mm. It's half the weight of the 24-105, and a quarter of the price. Quick usm focus, generally sharp. There is noticeable light fall off wide open, and corners are not very sharp (on a 5D), but the overall IQ is not much off the L lens. To me, the biggest loss was the IS, but only a problem when light is low.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I don't think the 24-105 is small but it is easier to lug around compared to the 24-70. If you want a small zoom I would suggest the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or the Canon 24-85. I used to own the Tamron and it was pretty good, I never used the 24-85 but it gets good reviews. Considering what you have you may want to consider a 17-40, I can see a wide angle being very useful in France and the 17-40 is pretty compact and it does not extend out of the barrel.</p>

[michael_ziegler2]

<p>I went all over Europe with my 24-105. The IS helps greatly, especially in low light with the 5D if you boost up the ISO. You will find that lens to be very versatile. It is really not heavy on the 5D, I also used it with my 1D3 which makes the package much heavier but doable carrying around all day.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>24-105 f4, you will regret not having a good lens, the 24-105 is very good</p>

[pto189]

<p>1. Canon 24-105mm f/4L, ideal lens with a little more weight<br>

2. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, excellent optic quality yet no IS or USM<br>

3. Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5, average in all aspects<br>

Do not forget to bring a small prime lens such as the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 II or the Canon 35mm f/2 for low light condition.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I use the 24-105/4L IS for exactly that purpose, and it does a fine job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

[matt_needham]

<blockquote>

<p>"Tamron is at least 1/3rd stop brighter when compared to the same f/# on the L"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Can you explain this one..?"<br /> I don't know the reason for it, but when I put my 5D on a tripod and manual exposure (same settings), and take photos of the same scene/light with both the Tamron and Canon lenses, the Tamron exposure looks noticably brighter. It's reflected in the histogram also. To get histograms and exposures that are most similar I have to stop down the Tamron lens a click or two from where I have the Canon lens set to. I've noticed this over and over again, as I have done extensive personal comparisons of these two lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert_turner]

<p>That is rather bizarre.<br>

Perhaps the Tamron is miscommunicating its aperture opening to the camera body?</p>

<p> </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>For a non-zoom and very light-weight change of pace: try one of Canon's (cheaper) 50mm. The f1.4 is decent. Or the 35mm f2.0.</p>

[derek_hammond1]

<p>"Tamron is at least 1/3rd stop brighter when compared to the same f/# on the L"</p>

<p>This is because an 'f stop' is the ratio of the focal length of the lens and the aperture. Because the lens elements vary in type and in quantity between manufacturers the amount of light received at the sensor will also vary.<br>

Film makers have been aware of this for many years and most cinematic lenses have 'T' stops as apposed to 'F' stops, the 'T' standing for transmittance and allows the changing of lenses with different focal lengths without affecting exposure provided the same 'T' stop is selected.</p>

[User_1684234]

<p>I second the current (Version II) Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5. 13 oz; USM with FTM; very nice IQ. Enjoy your trip!</p>

[e_thp]

<p>the 50 / 1.8</p>

<p>it makes my 5d happy.</p>

<p> </p>

[joe_williams3]

<p>A possible alternative is a capable P&S. I'm going to Germany in a few weeks, and picked up a Canon G10 for the trip. It's much lighter and compact than my 5D and 24-105. I'm giving up some capability, but I'm gaining a lot in weight and space.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>++ G10, so much more convenient :-)</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>Prime time: 24mm , 50mm, 85mm, and just for fun a fisheye.... :)<br>

all small, all light, all sharp... and if one fails, you can just pop on another one and still have memories of your trip.... regards.<br>

mat</p>

[leonardlow]

<p>Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Only slightly more expensive than the Canon f/1.4... but quality close to the Canon f/1.2L. Very light; very versatile; very fast... capable of incredible shots, and incredible value.</p>

[dmarks]

<p>G10 is what I did also.I didn't want to be burdoned with a large body and lens on my trip to Cuba.G10 fit the bill nicely.I don't feel I really compromised much.</p>