17-55/24-105 too heavy

I'd also suggest a monopod (as DreDaze suggested) with a ball head. That way you're carrying something lighter and much less cumbersome than a tripod, but you can rest the majority of the camera/lens's weight on it and just keep the ball joint relatively loose so you can move the camera around.

If you don't really mind variable and smaller apertures, then something like the 55-250 would be great, or you could also consider the Canon 70-300 IS, Canon 28-200, Tamron 18-250, Sigma 70-300, or similar (I'm sure there are other relatively lightweight zooms out there). Of course price and quality between those lenses varies, but you can figure out what you feel like being able to afford and research from there.

KaBlookie wrote in post #11673378
I'd also suggest a monopod (as DreDaze suggested) with a ball head. That way you're carrying something lighter and much less cumbersome than a tripod, but you can rest the majority of the camera/lens's weight on it and just keep the ball joint relatively loose so you can move the camera around.

If you don't really mind variable and smaller apertures, then something like the 55-250 would be great, or you could also consider the Canon 70-300 IS, Canon 28-200, Tamron 18-250, or the Sigma 70-300. Of course price and quality between those lenses varies, but you can figure out what you feel like being able to afford and research from there.

I had a karate shoot, and I was doing video with my 7D and used the 40D for pics. I used a MONOPOD for the video. Makes much better results. I found out that the monopod really releived the stress of carrying a camera for hours.
So I agree with the monopod idea.

what kind of body do you have? rebels - smaller and lighter, and that might offset the weight a little.

It always helps to read through a thread before commenting on it

She says in post #19 that she has a 50D, and there has already been mention of looking at a T2i...

gardengirl13 wrote in post #11672574
I'm looking to upgrade my 28-105II but the 17-55 I got last week is too heavy and my hands are killing me right now. The 15-85 and 24-105 seem to weigh about the same. I'd prefer something in the same range, 40 on the 17-40 isn't long enough to use as my walk around. Any ideas?

I have arthritis, so camera/lens weight is always a factor for me. I use a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and am very satisfied with it. It's nice and light, and gives great IQ. The constant f2.8 is very useful as well. If you can live with 28 mm, it might be an option.

The Tamron options like the 17-50 and 28-75 are small and light in comparison to the Canon lenses.

If your condition doesn't rule out focusing manually there are old primes (i.e. 135mm F/2.8) that can be adapted to fit that are EXTREMELY small and light. I hve such a lens and it's hardly bigger than the 18-55 kit lens, and not overly heavy at all, hardly feels like a lens is attached. And the manual focus action is smoooooth, so it's not as hard as you think.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #11672817
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.

What about a 60D and a hand strap? The 60D is lighter, very close to the 30D weight, and the swivel LCD may allow you to hold the camera in a more comfortable position while using the screen tilted to give you the live view. Also a $10 hand strap will help distribute the overall weight more evenly around your hand and allow you to relax your fingers. Finally, adding a carbon fiber monopod to help support the camera in between shooting could help rest your hand as well, plus add stability in lower light situations.

http://www.dealextreme​.com/details.dx/sku.81​75

Finally, I agree looking into the 55-250 or maybe primes as have been suggested. The 50 1.4 Canon is very light, as an example. The Tamron 17-50 as suggested is a good lens, and the Sigma 18-50 macro is about the same size and is a bit cheaper too.

Great that you are looking at options than get out of the hobby. That would just kill me to have to sell everything and revert to a good point and shoot or a different format.

My father has anklyosing spondilitis which as a similar track to what the OP has described. It steadilty takes away stength and mobility.

Body - Drop down to a Rebel. You might consider a micro 4:3. I have a GF-1 and with the 20/1.7 it has excellent IQ. The 14-45 zoom is good, but it solves nothing for you in regards to a faster lens than the 28-105 you have. And the available primes for micro 4:3 are spotty so far.

Lenses - as was mentioned, perhaps a handful of the small and light Canon primes might work (28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. Another look would be third party zooms. A lot of Sigma and Tamron zooms are a lot smaller and lighter than Canon versions.

My son needed something lighter as well. Even though he desired more, he went with the T2i, 18-55, nifty-fifty, and will soon pick up a 55-250. It's a very "light" set up that suits him well. It came down to quality of photography versus quality of photos.

Have you tried the 24-70L?

Tony_Stark wrote in post #11675420
Have you tried the 24-70L?

Maybe tie a whole bunch of balloons to it, you mean?

Tony_Stark wrote in post #11675420
Have you tried the 24-70L?

I assume this is in jest? They don't call that lens the brick for nothing.

It was meant as a joke haha

i dont find the 17-55 heavy at all.

supernova74 wrote in post #11675774
i dont find the 17-55 heavy at all.

17-55 is a nice lens, but if weight is an issue, the 17-55 is 3x heavier than the 18-55 (which weighs only a few ounces more than the nifty fifty).