presspass
filmshooter
I use a pair of Canon DSLR cameras and their battery grips for work. I typically carry three lenses - 17-40 f4.0, 50 1.8, and 70-200 2.8 - as well as a flash and a spare set of batteries. The weight is becoming too much for my back, and I do need all of this for newspaper work. What is the lightest least expensive set that will give me approximately the same focal lengths. Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks.
ruby.monkey
Mentor
Canon RP with an EF adaptor? It's going to be hard to find cheaper equivalent glass than that you already own.
Bill Clark
Mentor
I use Canon.
My main lens for flexibility, when I worked, was the 24-70 f2.8. It is large and fairly heavy.
I don’t use battery grips. I have one tele lens with the gyros but didn’t use them because that would eat into the battery. Besides with my type of work I didn't need it.
The 70-200 is a fine lens but I found, because of its size, it was intimidating for the subjects I photographed. And it is on the heavy side.
I’m a minimalist now that I’m retired. I rarely use the 24-70. It worked fine when I had my business. Could easily change the coverage with various group photos I made. Mostly operated the camera in manual mode. The focus could zero in on something other than what I wanted to photograph. I wanted at the very least to have faces tack sharp. Same for the light meter. I see photographs where the foreground (people) is OK for exposure but blown out background and a white sky. That is a lousy photograph to me. And when I obtainted a meeting with prospective clients it was easy to show them the difference. And, along with other criteria, I usually got the gig. I learned way back when all my cameras operated manually.
Now use the 50 f1.4 most of the time.
Tell you the truth, I now use the iPhone more than any other camera.
My main lens for flexibility, when I worked, was the 24-70 f2.8. It is large and fairly heavy.
I don’t use battery grips. I have one tele lens with the gyros but didn’t use them because that would eat into the battery. Besides with my type of work I didn't need it.
The 70-200 is a fine lens but I found, because of its size, it was intimidating for the subjects I photographed. And it is on the heavy side.
I’m a minimalist now that I’m retired. I rarely use the 24-70. It worked fine when I had my business. Could easily change the coverage with various group photos I made. Mostly operated the camera in manual mode. The focus could zero in on something other than what I wanted to photograph. I wanted at the very least to have faces tack sharp. Same for the light meter. I see photographs where the foreground (people) is OK for exposure but blown out background and a white sky. That is a lousy photograph to me. And when I obtainted a meeting with prospective clients it was easy to show them the difference. And, along with other criteria, I usually got the gig. I learned way back when all my cameras operated manually.
Now use the 50 f1.4 most of the time.
Tell you the truth, I now use the iPhone more than any other camera.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Canon RP with 24-105 F4 L RF and 50 1.8 RF. If you really need wider than 24, here is RF SWA third party prime. 70-200 F4 RF is also available.
I have covered many local events and been published locally. Quit from 5D MKII a while ago.
I'm on same events with same local paper photog, I have no idea why he always needs two DSLRs with huge zooms on them. He has no problems to get to the subjects as close as I'm. But my choice is to walk closer, engage and take it close. His - toss press card around and walk a little.
I have covered many local events and been published locally. Quit from 5D MKII a while ago.
I'm on same events with same local paper photog, I have no idea why he always needs two DSLRs with huge zooms on them. He has no problems to get to the subjects as close as I'm. But my choice is to walk closer, engage and take it close. His - toss press card around and walk a little.
Does it need to be Canon?
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
When I had a Canon I had the 24-70 f4 lens and just loved it. Light, small, focuses very close, just a great all around lens. I like the idea of the Canon R with the adapter, has to be the most cost effective way to go.
presspass
filmshooter
It does not have to be a Canon. It is handy to have two bodies - one with a wide to normal zoom and the other with a normal to telephoto zoom. There are times when access is limited and conditions do not make changing lenses practical.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
You might start by swapping the 70-200 ƒ/2.8 zoom for an ƒ/4. Full frame sensors are good enough now that ƒ/4 zooms are enough.
If you get a body with IBIS, you can save weight by using lenses without ILIS.
I’m tempted to suggest switching to one of Fujifilm’s X-T bodies. They use APS-C sensors but the image quality is very good. Weight savings for the lenses would be thus:
Canon 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 USM L to Fuji 50-140mm ƒ/2.8: 310g
Canon 17-40mm ƒ/4 to Fuji 10-24mm ƒ/4: 64g (v.1 Fuji lens) or 89g (v.2 Fuji lens)
Fuji doesn’t have a 50mm ƒ/1.8 equivalent lens, so you’d have to choose between either the 35mm ƒ/1.4 or the 35mm ƒ/2. You would gain 57g with the ƒ/1.4 and 40g with the ƒ/2 over the Canon.
The outlay for getting new lenses would not be insignificant, as always when switching systems.
You can get an X-T3 for $999 from Adorama or B&H, as it’s been supplanted by the X-T4, but the X-T4 isn’t significantly better unless you’re doing video. Not knowing which Canon bodies you’re using now makes it hard to say what the weight savings would be. You will have to carry more spare batteries than you do with the Canon. I carry two spares for my X-Pro1 and it’s always been more than enough for me.
If you get a body with IBIS, you can save weight by using lenses without ILIS.
I’m tempted to suggest switching to one of Fujifilm’s X-T bodies. They use APS-C sensors but the image quality is very good. Weight savings for the lenses would be thus:
Canon 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 USM L to Fuji 50-140mm ƒ/2.8: 310g
Canon 17-40mm ƒ/4 to Fuji 10-24mm ƒ/4: 64g (v.1 Fuji lens) or 89g (v.2 Fuji lens)
Fuji doesn’t have a 50mm ƒ/1.8 equivalent lens, so you’d have to choose between either the 35mm ƒ/1.4 or the 35mm ƒ/2. You would gain 57g with the ƒ/1.4 and 40g with the ƒ/2 over the Canon.
The outlay for getting new lenses would not be insignificant, as always when switching systems.
You can get an X-T3 for $999 from Adorama or B&H, as it’s been supplanted by the X-T4, but the X-T4 isn’t significantly better unless you’re doing video. Not knowing which Canon bodies you’re using now makes it hard to say what the weight savings would be. You will have to carry more spare batteries than you do with the Canon. I carry two spares for my X-Pro1 and it’s always been more than enough for me.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I switched from Canon to Olympus a few years ago because i have a lot of health problems and the weight of the fullframe Canon gear I used was just way too much.
I have the OM-D E-M1 mark II, which is a weathersealed pro body. I have the battery grip for mine, and even with that it is tiny and light compared to a Canon. The model was recently replaced with the mark III version,and is now being sold very cheaply if you don't need the few added features of the newer model.
For lenses, the 7-14mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens is sharper, faster, and smaller than the ultrawide Canon you have. I also have the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens. If you prefer smaller, there is the slightly smaller 12-45mm f4 Pro lens. If you need a 50mm f1.8 equivalent, Olympus's 25mm f1.8 is tiny, cheap, and VERY sharp.
Olympus also makes a 40-150mm f2.8 Pro lens that is small compared to a Canon 70-210 f2.8.
I have the OM-D E-M1 mark II, which is a weathersealed pro body. I have the battery grip for mine, and even with that it is tiny and light compared to a Canon. The model was recently replaced with the mark III version,and is now being sold very cheaply if you don't need the few added features of the newer model.
For lenses, the 7-14mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens is sharper, faster, and smaller than the ultrawide Canon you have. I also have the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens. If you prefer smaller, there is the slightly smaller 12-45mm f4 Pro lens. If you need a 50mm f1.8 equivalent, Olympus's 25mm f1.8 is tiny, cheap, and VERY sharp.
Olympus also makes a 40-150mm f2.8 Pro lens that is small compared to a Canon 70-210 f2.8.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
You could get two used RP.
Small size and light weight might require re-learn of controls.
Holding RP and L zoom is different. Main weight is a lot more on the lens.
It feels line lens and small attachment on the back. Even smaller than digital Rebel.
If you want weight down on lenses as well, you have to look at small sensors.
But even asp-c lenses ain't going to give giant weight loss for lenses you have mentioned.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1454485-REG/fujifilm_xf_50_140mm_f_2_8_r.html/specs
It is somewhat achievable with m43.
Small size and light weight might require re-learn of controls.
Holding RP and L zoom is different. Main weight is a lot more on the lens.
It feels line lens and small attachment on the back. Even smaller than digital Rebel.
If you want weight down on lenses as well, you have to look at small sensors.
But even asp-c lenses ain't going to give giant weight loss for lenses you have mentioned.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1454485-REG/fujifilm_xf_50_140mm_f_2_8_r.html/specs
It is somewhat achievable with m43.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Another suggestion would be to upgrade the bodies to 40+ megapixel full frame mirrorless and replace your 70-200mm with a 24-105mm or 24-120mm ƒ/4 zoom and use the extra megapixels to crop if you need to. If you’re not able to cover your beat without the wide, would you be able to live with a single focal length somewhere in the 17-24mm range and buy a third party manual focus prime in that focal length?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
This one is very impressive. Sealed, 2.8, OS and under 400 grams.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...us_v314060bu000_m_zuiko_digital_ed.html/specs
From time to time I want to ditch all of my Canon gear and go OM-D, but I'm not sure if I could handle low ISO only. Clean 12800 ISO is handy for indoors, which m34 sensors seems to be not capable of.
Does deeper DOF of m43 allows to have twice wider apertures in real world situations? I hear it on street talks videos, but never seen it to be proved.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Micro Four Thirds won't give good results at ISO 12800. I shoot with mine at 3200 often, and the noise level at that ISO is about the same as I got from the Canon 5DmkII that I used to use. Of course, the 5DmkII is an older camera, more modern Canons are less noisy.
About depth of field, yes its true. I shoot with the 12-40mm f2.8 lens most of the time and I use f5.6 for almost everything. It has enough depth of field for almost anything. Sometimes I will shoot at f8 if i need more. You don't want to shoot at f11 or below because the images become VERY soft due to diffraction at anything past f8 (and f8 is noticeably softer than f5.6, though still very good).
Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II with Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro. ISO-3200, f5.6
Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II with Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro Lens. ISO-3200, f5.6
Olympus OM-D E-M1 mark II with Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro Lens. ISO-3200, f8 to keep my son and the cat both in focus.
presspass
filmshooter
Shot a drive through at a local pharmacy today - the driver hit the gas instead of the brake and went through the front door. No injuries by no room to shoot. Lens at 17mm and could have used wider. BTW, the Canons are 7D, so I am used to crop factor digital.
Archiver
Mentor
Okay. You're using 7Ds with grips, and the 17-40 f4. 50 f1.8 and 70-200 f2.8, and you want a smaller, lighter kit that covers this focal length range that is also economical.
17-40 f4 is like 27-64, 50 is like 80mm, and 70-200 is like 112-320. So you want a focal length range that covers 24mm - 300mm+, with a fast portrait lens in the middle.
A light and inexpensive option is the Panasonic G85 with secondhand Olympus 12-40 f2.8, 45mm f1.8, and 40-150mm f2.8. The Olympus lenses are all much smaller than their aps-c or full frame counterparts and outperform them except for the 70-200, which is an excellent lens. The only caveat is high ISO performance, as noted before. For most situations, m43 is acceptable. I use that format for most of my personal work, unless I want full frame. Third party manufacturers make battery grips for the G85, so with some shopping around, you can get a very decent photographic package for much less than paying retail.
Others mention the Canon RP, which is smaller and lighter than the 7D, but it still means carrying the large 70-200. I feel that a lot of the weight of your setup comes from the lenses, not just the bodies.
If you're happy with aps-c and want that focal length range, how about a gently used Fuji XT2 or XT3 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4, 55-200mm f3.5-4.8, and 60mm f2.4 Macro for portraits and close ups. With judicious shopping, this will cost a lot less than retail. The XT2 and XT3 have battery grips and perform well at high ISO. But this kit will weigh more than the Panasonic G85 kit above.
Do you have some idea of budget? And will you completely trade in your Canon gear? How often do you shoot in challenging (very low) light?
Here are examples from the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/oly_40-150mm_28_pro/pool/127790525@N06
and from the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8
https://www.flickr.com/groups/olympus_ed_12-40_f28_pro/pool/page1/
and from the Olympus 45mm f1.8
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1759398@N21/
17-40 f4 is like 27-64, 50 is like 80mm, and 70-200 is like 112-320. So you want a focal length range that covers 24mm - 300mm+, with a fast portrait lens in the middle.
A light and inexpensive option is the Panasonic G85 with secondhand Olympus 12-40 f2.8, 45mm f1.8, and 40-150mm f2.8. The Olympus lenses are all much smaller than their aps-c or full frame counterparts and outperform them except for the 70-200, which is an excellent lens. The only caveat is high ISO performance, as noted before. For most situations, m43 is acceptable. I use that format for most of my personal work, unless I want full frame. Third party manufacturers make battery grips for the G85, so with some shopping around, you can get a very decent photographic package for much less than paying retail.
Others mention the Canon RP, which is smaller and lighter than the 7D, but it still means carrying the large 70-200. I feel that a lot of the weight of your setup comes from the lenses, not just the bodies.
If you're happy with aps-c and want that focal length range, how about a gently used Fuji XT2 or XT3 with the 18-55mm f2.8-4, 55-200mm f3.5-4.8, and 60mm f2.4 Macro for portraits and close ups. With judicious shopping, this will cost a lot less than retail. The XT2 and XT3 have battery grips and perform well at high ISO. But this kit will weigh more than the Panasonic G85 kit above.
Do you have some idea of budget? And will you completely trade in your Canon gear? How often do you shoot in challenging (very low) light?
Here are examples from the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/oly_40-150mm_28_pro/pool/127790525@N06
and from the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8
https://www.flickr.com/groups/olympus_ed_12-40_f28_pro/pool/page1/
and from the Olympus 45mm f1.8
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1759398@N21/