17-55/24-105 too heavy

Tommydigi wrote in post #11672733
I agree about the primes ( you have to try a 24-70 if you want heavy ) A nice combo of good primes is 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. All are small and light, use the same size filter and offer really high quality that will surpass any zoom.

I agree, those primes you mentioned i have, and they would do the job for her.

By the way, congrats on Senior Member (1000).

Tripod is the way to go. Set it up and push the button. You can pickup tripod and mounted camera with your arm and carry it someplace else.

DreDaze wrote in post #11672768
have you thought about switching out the 30D for a rebel?

edit:...actually you had a 30D...not sure what you upgraded to

When I bought the 50D I tested it against the rebel and 7D for comfort and the 50D won. It's the only reason I didn't go with one of the other two. I'm not sure if the T2i is better feeling then the T1i I tried, but for some reason I found it cramped my hand, no where near as bad as the 7D did though. Maybe I'll go try that too as it's about 10oz less.

Savas K wrote in post #11672798
Tripod is the way to go. Set it up and push the button. You can pickup tripod and mounted camera with your arm and carry it someplace else.

I do use a tripod, but the arthritis stems mostly from my back. I do have my husband carry both the tripod and the camera bag, but I'm getting sort of guilty feeling making him carry everything like a pack mule. I'd also like to go out without dragging him everywhere. (of course he won't let me because he's worried I'll fall and hurt myself.)

Well I'm seeing that I might as well just keep the 28-105 and my primes. Everything lighter seems like a downgrade and everything better is heavier. I was just foolishly hoping there would be something out there.

Maybe just get a G12. I have an S95 and the image quality ( in decent light ) is really good.

Katalyst wrote in post #11672753
Go hit the gym!

i'd let her hit YOU!

she has a bit of arthritis, mentioned in her post, but you must have missed that

Katalyst wrote in post #11672753
Go hit the gym!

Did you even read the thread? lazy and rude.....

What about a Tamron 28-75 2.8??

Great light weight lens with good low light performance.

Which is why I said that about cost.

tkbslc wrote in post #11672751
I was also going to suggest something like Olympus m4/3 or Samsung NX, which is much more realistic budget wise for most of us.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #11672684
I'm thinking of the tamron, but I worry 50 isn't long enough for me. When shooting on the street I tend to be at 80 or longer a lot.

Had a 28-105 3.5-4.5 that I loved the range on my 40D. Picked up a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and did not have enough reach, upgraded to a 24-105 F4L and could not be happier!

I suggest trying the lens out for a week or so and i'm sure you will get use to the weight. When you say too heavy, are you arms hurting?

kwando wrote in post #11673143
Had a 28-105 3.5-4.5 that I loved the range on my 40D. Picked up a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and did not have enough reach, upgraded to a 24-105 F4L and could not be happier!

I suggest trying the lens out for a week or so and i'm sure you will get use to the weight. When you say too heavy, are you arms hurting?

My finger joints, wrists, elbows and back. This disease goes after the back and other joints too, like the hands and feet and hips.

It's a cousin to rheumatoid arthritis. It's an autoimmune disease, kind of. What happens is my body has tons of inflammation and then if that wasn't enough, my immune system sees that as hostile and attacks it. I'm on and off immuno-suppressing medications and other drugs that can make me tired, I think that adds to the weight and fatigue I get in my hands and feet.


For me weight doesn't get easier with more use, it gets worse and worse until I can barely move. But if I can get a medication to work more then 3 months I feel great! I can do anything. But we still have not found the one to work long term.

i know it doesn't really work for replacing your 28-105mm....but you had mentioned that you were using a 70-200mm...i'd take a good look at the 55-250mm for the same uses...that thing is ridiculously light weight, and certainly capable of good shots in the right conditions

it'd actually be about the same weight as your 28-105mm

Really? I may have to look at that one.

Right now I'm thinking of not replacing the 28-105 and getting a fun landscape lens. I was torn between the 17-55 and the 10-22, thinking I'd switch lenses less with the 17-55 I got that one. But with 10-22 is about 10oz less, so I have that one on order to use in addition to the 28-105. But i still really want to shoot birds. I don't care if it's a f/4 or slower, I normally shoot at 6.3-8 to be sure to get the bird in focus. I just need something longer then 105. I have very friendly birds though and have gotten some great shots of them with the 28-105.

Thanks for all your help! I'll have to really look at that 55-250!

There are 2 pics in this thread using the 55-250.
https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=986​561&page=3

Quite impressive. I have one and use it for outdoor sports. It is NOT an indoor lens. However, for outdoor, it gets good pics. 4 stops of IS (canon claims). VERY light. Might be right down your alley.