Lightest Canon Lens?

[patrick_j.]

<p>hello --</p>

<p>may be an odd question. but i am looking at ways to make my gear as light as possible. i realize while all that L glass micht be really nice, it also is quite heavy. So i am wondering what the lightest AF canon lens. A reasonably wide prime would be fine. Any buying recommendations and experiences?</p>

<p>thanks in advance.</p>

<p>patrick.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>EF 50/1.8 II is about the lightest Canon AF lens. It's pretty good too.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The lightest EF lens I have is the 24/2.8, and it's a superb performer: sharp with good contrast. The 35/2 is also very light, but since I have the 35/1.4 L, I can't comment on its performance. Which would be better depends on which focal length you prefer, which in turn depends on which sensor size you're using.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>IMHO, If you must have auto focus, the EF24/2.8 is reasonable size, weight and performance. If you don't mind manual focus, check out the Cosina 20/3.5 SL-II for Nikon and use it with an Canon adapter. The EF20/2.8 is bigger in size but doesn't weight that much as well. </p>

[jonsjons]

<p>yeah, the 50mm f/1.8 is 130g, and it's a nice lens. if you're looking at zooms, the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 and the ef-s 10-22 are both pretty light...around 380g.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>EF 50 1.8II, 35 2.0 and 28 2.8 are the lightest primes. If you don't mind a little more weight, the EF 24 2.8 and 50 2.5CM aren't too far away. The lightest tele is the EF 135 2.8SF. And the best thing is all these primes are very sharp although 80s designs. </p>

<p>The lightest zoom is the EF-S 18-55 IS. If you need full frame, a used or old stock EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM is as light as it gets with decent quality. Of course the 28-80 3.5-5.6 is even lighter but kinda crap.</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>i wonder if the 50 1.8 II is the lightest (all glass) lens in production (by any company)<br>

i used the 50 on a rebel -- ultra-lightweight rig. if weight were the main concern i could see going that way and throwing in a 28 as well.<br>

i really like that aspect of my rebel days -- light, easy to carry all day long.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>the 50mm 1.8 is the lightest. I love it. I imagine the wider primes like the 24mm are light too.</p>

[morthcam]

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf</p>

[david israel]

<p>I would say the 50 1.8 is the lightest and probally best lens for the buck as well.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>my lightweight kit is a 28 1.8 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Now I realize all 3 weigh more then a 24-70 but when on the camera its very easy to carry and much more discrete then a giant L</p>

[valko]

<p>Lightest and wide for which camera? Full sensor or APS-C?<br>

Canon EF-S 10-22mm is the lightest wide lens with good quality, bear in mind that for APS-C sensor camera like say 50D or 7D, prime 50mm lens is actually 50x1.6 = 80mm which is not a wide lens, that is way most of the good prime lens are not wide on APS-C sensor cameras. Canon EF-S 10-22mm is actually 16-35mm lens on APS-C sensors.</p>

[markonestudios]

Canon's 50 f/1.8 is super lightweight. Not very wide though ;-) Perhaps if you can help us help you by defining what you mean by "...reasonably wide prime..." :]

[Robin Smith]

<p>Voigt/Cosina 40mm f2 will be pretty light too.</p>

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>The Cosina 40/2.0 (200 g) and 20/3.5 (205 g) are the second and third lightest EOS primes, after the 130 g 50/1.8 and (only slightly) before the 35/2.0 (210 g). But being ultracompact, these lenses _feel_ heavier and more solid than the 35/2.0. I find the Cosina 20/3.5 and 40/2.0 to perform slightly better than the Canon 20/2.8 and 35/2.0, I think. Maybe. So far, I like them.</p>