Is there a light weight fast lens?

[Marvin]

<p>I'd like a faster lens than my 24-105, 100-400, etc. Such are not only expensive but heavy - heavier that I'd like. Any alternatives worth considering?</p>

[mike dixon]

What do you consider lightweight? What do you consider fast? Lenses like 50/f1.4 and 35/f2 are compact and not very heavy.

[devon_mccarroll]

What focal length are you wanting? The 85 1.8 is lightweight and also pretty inexpensive. The 135 f2 weighs a bit over 1.5 lbs. according

to specs.

[bobatkins]

<p>100/2, 85/1.8, 50/1.8, 40/2.8, 35/2, 28/2.8, 24/2.8, 85/1.8, 100/2<br>

400/4 DO maybe? 70-300 IS?</p>

[iangillett]

<p>The 200 f2.8 has become a bit of an overlooked lens now that the 70-200 Mk ii has such good performance at the long end and most people want a zoom. It's one of the cheapest 'L' lenses. The FD version used to be my favourite lens when I had a T90.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The 24-105 is 23.6 oz. Both the Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX DG and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di weigh in around 18 oz. As far as I know, these are the only 'fast' FF zooms which are significantly lighter than your 24-105. </p>

<p>As far as the 100-400 goes though, even the 'lightest' f2.8 zooms are similar in weight (or much greater), and don't have nearly the focal length reach. For this range, other than a 70-200/4, a single tele prime is going to be the only option which yields significantly less weight, and a significant increase in speed. </p>

<p>...That said, a bagful of primes will likely outweigh any but the heaviest zooms...</p>

[Marvin]

<p>I wasn't very specific, I know. actually I was wanting a carry around zoom, about 24-105, or 18-270. I have the 50mm 1.8 but I like a zoom. I tried the Canon 70-200 2.8 but it is way too heavy for me..</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Try the 70-200mm f4 IS. It's not heavy.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>If you are shooting crop, then there are several mid range zooms which are considerably lighter than your 24-105. Of course, since they prioritize a constant f2.8 max aperture, they are much more limited in focal range. 17-50/55 /2.8s vary from about 15oz to 23 oz (the EF-S17-55/2.8 IS).</p>

<p>Frankly,if your 2 primary priorities are a) speed, and b) weight, and f4 is fast enough on the tele end, a 70-200/4 IS (or nonIS - it's slightly (less than 10%) lighter) L would be my choice, paired w/ an 17-50/ f2.8 (of Sigma or Tamron variety - since the Canon 17-55/2.8 is nearly as heavy as your 24-105) </p>

[William Michael]

<table border="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td valign="bottom" width="275"> </td>

<td valign="bottom"> </td>

<td valign="bottom"> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>EF 24 to 70 F/4 IS USM, the Tamron 28 to 75 F/2.8 XR Di is lighter, but no Stabilization. You don’t comment on stabilization as a criterion. (edit: just noted MI already mentioned this one)</p>

<p>EF 100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6 L USM: I don’t know of a comparative zoom lens that is both lighter and faster, though the already mentioned EF200/2.8L and either (or both of) the EF Extenders could be an option.</p>

<p>Ef 70 to 200 F/2.8L (you don’t mention which one), but assuming it is the IS version, the non-IS version is a bit lighter. qBut the already mentioned 70 to 200 F/4 IS version would be my choice too and it works OK with the x1.4MkII or MkIII EF Extenders, giving you a non varying maximum aperture of F/5.6.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>50mm f1.8...</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Which body are you using. The EF-S lenses are considerably lighter than the full-frame L-series lenses.</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>I fully understand the problem of weight. I have a Canon 7D and my anytime lens is the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Together they are heavy, but I use it virtually all the time. I have seven other lenses. My most recent purchase was the 100-400 Canon, that has just been replaced with a newer version. I can barely carry it , let alone use it. It has been on my shelf for over a year. I am at a point where I am thinking of abandoning the whole system and going to some light weight Powershot or other brand. It seems that the more sophisticated cameras become, the heavier they are. </p>

<p>I wish you luck in you quest for lighter lenses. One of my older cameras is a Leica IIIg with four lenses. I think altogether they are lighter than that 100-400mm. </p>

<p> </p>

[colin carron]

<p>For a standard zoom I second the suggestion of the Tamron 28 - 75 F/2.8 XR Di. As noted there is no IS and for APS-C sized cameras the focal range is perhaps not the most useful. But it is a high quality, lightweight, fast lens.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>There is the Voigtländer branded 40mm f/2 pancake lens which weighs 200g. You mentioned that you prefer zoom lenses, which makes sense, but pick any two: fast, light, zoom.</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Roger, The EOS100D is half the weight of the 820g 7D, but still puts out 18mp. Crop sensor cameras have lightweight lens options which should still outpace a Powershot.820g</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>Those are all good responses on light weight lenses, however I want my cake and want to eat it too, so to speak. For me I am only interested in zoom lenses. I do have the Canon 50 mm lens, but it sets on the shelf unless I want a portrait. As for the Voigtlaender lens, again no zoom, I think James Elwing's suggestion is not a bad idea, go for a lighter weight camera. BTW, years ago, I had a Voightlaender Prominent camera. It was a great 35mm. </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>If a zoom is fast, it will be heavy. </p>