If you could only have three lenses for the C300...

[ChadN]

Hey guys, first i'll admit that i've never used a camera with interchangeable lenses. So, i'm very new to this. However, everything i see from the C300 looks stellar. I don't care about the specs, i just think this camera, it's codec and workflow and clips i've seen all seem like exactly what i'd wish for. To give an idea, i do You Tube videos. Lots of green screen. Some vlog style videos, where a shallow DOF would be nice. We cover some events too, like Comic Con. Hoping to produce more cinematic looking content in the near future.

IF i splurge on the C300, i could probably swing just two or three lenses to start out...

Which lenses would you say are the "Must haves" for the C300? Maybe somewhat affordable, they don't have to be the very super best lenses ever.

Probably not an easy question, so thanks for any input!

[Osslund]

Ef 16-35, 24-70, 70-200

[jagstang]

For event / doco I'd say 17-55 F2.8 EFS IS, 24-105 F4 IS, 70-200 2.8 IS. 24-70 has no IS and 16-35 restricts you to wide in my opinion. I like to change lenses as little as possible so prefer a decent range. 17-55 gives you wide out to a usable mid tele. 24-105 is a great range if you don't need super wide. 70-200 is just lovely if you need to work on the long end and all three have IS.

[David W. Jones]

Duclos 11-16, Fujinon 19-90, Duclos 70-200.

[alpi69]

I am using the 24-105 for doc-work and it is great on the C300, because you can always compensate the relative slowness of the lens with higher ISO.
It is also easier to focus than many 2.8 lenses.

For more cinematic looks I can recommend Samyang lenses (35/1.4 and 85/1.4). Both not stabilized, so you need a rig/shouldermount, but they look great, have a nice focus throw and look better than Canon glass for a smaller price.
You can also use the Sigma 30/1.4 with great results on this cam.

If I had only 3:
Canon 17-55IS or Tamron 17-50VR
Canon 24-105
Samyang 85

[Graham King]

17-55, 70-200, 24 1.4

[c3hammer]

24mm L f1.4 II (a most amazing lens on crop cams and for stabilizer work)
50mm L f1.2
70-200mm L f2.8 IS II

[Erik Naso]

Hey guys, first i'll admit that i've never used a camera with interchangeable lenses. So, i'm very new to this. However, everything i see from the C300 looks stellar. I don't care about the specs, i just think this camera, it's codec and workflow and clips i've seen all seem like exactly what i'd wish for. To give an idea, i do You Tube videos. Lots of green screen. Some vlog style videos, where a shallow DOF would be nice. We cover some events too, like Comic Con. Hoping to produce more cinematic looking content in the near future.

IF i splurge on the C300, i could probably swing just two or three lenses to start out...

Which lenses would you say are the "Must haves" for the C300? Maybe somewhat affordable, they don't have to be the very super best lenses ever.

Probably not an easy question, so thanks for any input!
Assuming your getting the canon mount the 17-40 is parfocal and so is the 70-200. Throw in a fast 50 and supplement as you go.

[alpi69]

24mm L f1.4 II (a most amazing lens on crop cams and for stabilizer work)
50mm L f1.2
70-200mm L f2.8 IS II

very nice list.

[cowpunk52]

Assuming your getting the canon mount the 17-40 is parfocal and so is the 70-200. Throw in a fast 50 and supplement as you go.

That's great advice, and I didn't know that the 17-40 is parfocal.

My first 3 lenses were the 24L, 50L, 85L. Nice set for narrative & lowlight, but my next two lenses were the 16-35L & 24-105L IS - and of all of those, I use the 24-105L IS the most. It's an incredibly versatile lens on the C300. My next lens will likely be a 70-200L IS, but I'm not in a huge hurry for it. So far this kit has suited my purposes extremely well. I went with all L series so that I would have the option for full-frame if/when I pick up a 5dIII.

edit: personally, I'm really not a fan of the 24-70L lens. Can't put my finger on exactly why, but I just don't like find it nice to use.

[GrahamH]

IF i splurge on the C300, i could probably swing just two or three lenses to start out...
... maybe somewhat affordable, they don't have to be the very super best lenses ever.
Probably not an easy question, so thanks for any input!

Well, you did ask for any input, so I suppose that might justify some wiseguy suggesting a $38,000 MSRP Fujinon. Rolls eyes ...

[David W. Jones]

Thoughts of the wise guy.... As camera technology is changing at a rapid rate, we are generally replacing cameras every 3 years. Rather than also replacing lenses, it makes more sense to purchase lenses which will last lifetime and work with any of your future camera purchases. Plus no budget was given by the OP so I suggested.

[Grug]

I'll take an 18mm, 35mm and 85mm cine-primes, preferably T/1.3 :)

[Jim Martin]

We've had a lot of interest in the Cinema Primes coming from Canon at the end of summer. They're basically super speeds that are way under priced (around $6500) for that many stops compared to the CP2s from Zeiss. F2-2.9 on the Zeiss vs. 1.3,1.3,1.5 on the Canons (24mm,50mm,85mm). They are going to sell quite well.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[SAIUN]

We've had a lot of interest in the Cinema Primes coming from Canon at the end of summer. They're basically super speeds that are way under priced (around $6500) for that many stops compared to the CP2s from Zeiss. F2-2.9 on the Zeiss vs. 1.3,1.3,1.5 on the Canons (24mm,50mm,85mm).
At NAB Zeiss announced new Super Speed CP.2 lenses at T1.5 for under US$5,000 which I think should be very competitive with the Canon cinema primes.

As for this thread, I'll go Arri 14mm Master Prime, Fujinon 18-85mm and Alura 45-250mm. :P

[Erik Naso]

This thread is like a strong poker hand. The ante keeps going up!
Then I will raise you a set of Cooke Panchro’s.

You still in David (AKA wise guy)?

[David W. Jones]

As long as I'm betting with someone else's money!
I had to pay in $12K this year to the tax man, so the set of rehoused Speed Panchros in PL mount I was after will have to wait.

[Mike McNeese]

Tokina 11-16, Tamron 24-70VC, Canon 70-200 IS.

[Jim Anderson]

That's great advice, and I didn't know that the 17-40 is parfocal. My first 3 lenses were the 24L, 50L, 85L. Nice set for narrative & lowlight, but my next two lenses were the 16-35L & 24-105L IS - and of all of those, I use the 24-105L IS the most. It's an incredibly versatile lens on the C300. My next lens will likely be a 70-200L IS, but I'm not in a huge hurry for it. So far this kit has suited my purposes extremely well. I went with all L series so that I would have the option for full-frame if/when I pick up a 5dIII. edit: personally, I'm really not a fan of the 24-70L lens. Can't put my finger on exactly why, but I just don't like find it nice to use. I find the 24-70mm good for wide shots when on sticks, but without IS, I have to use my hand held rig for POV or over-the-shoulder shots. Just ordered a 24-105 f1.2 and looking forward to using it.

[Dino]

We just added a RED 17-50mm T2.9 Cine zoom to our inventory. It was needed because our Arri Alura 18-80mm T2.6 Cine zoom is most definitely not a hand held lens. Now we need an 85mm Cine prime to go with the 17-50mm. Looks like the Zeiss CP.2 Super Speeds don't deliver until August 10, even though I was told June by Zeiss at NAB.

[Jim Anderson]

That's great advice, and I didn't know that the 17-40 is parfocal. My first 3 lenses were the 24L, 50L, 85L. Nice set for narrative & lowlight, but my next two lenses were the 16-35L & 24-105L IS - and of all of those, I use the 24-105L IS the most. It's an incredibly versatile lens on the C300. My next lens will likely be a 70-200L IS, but I'm not in a huge hurry for it. So far this kit has suited my purposes extremely well. I went with all L series so that I would have the option for full-frame if/when I pick up a 5dIII. edit: personally, I'm really not a fan of the 24-70L lens. Can't put my finger on exactly why, but I just don't like find it nice to use. I haven't heard any discussions on using the EF 24-105mm f1.4 IS USM, only the EF 24-105mm f4 IS USM. To me, it seems better to have the faster lense, but is there a down side to using it with the C300?

[Graham King]

I'd pay $10k for that lens. Although it'd probably sell for $200k.

[cowpunk52]

I haven't heard any discussions on using the EF 24-105mm f1.4 IS USM, only the EF 24-105mm f4 IS USM. To me, it seems better to have the faster lense, but is there a down side to using it with the C300?

There is no such lens (24-105 f1.4). There is only a 24-105 f4

[Jon Thorn]

I'd place a vote for the following two lenses: Canon 24-105mm F/4 and Canon 50mm F/1.4. One zoom with a nice range and consistent aperture through the range and one fast, normal prime. Both are relatively inexpensive lenses considering the type of quality images you can produce compared to the purchase price.

[Pelican]

Kick-starting this thread.. I have a C100 ordered and I have been doing quite a bit of searching on what lenses everyone is using with their C300.
IMHO this thread has under-represented the use of the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 with IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html). This is probably to be the most commonly used lens on the C300, with good reason; many feel it is sharper than the 24-70, it has image stabilization, it's a full stop faster than the 24-105 and is fair lighter and a bit less expensive than both.
So my three lenses will be:

Canon 17-55 f2.8 with IS
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
(Canon L 24 or 35 f1.4 (can't decide which just yet)

and a forth will be the 70-200L

[philiplipetz]

Kick-starting this thread.. I have a C100 ordered and I have been doing quite a bit of searching on what lenses everyone is using with their C300.
IMHO this thread has under-represented the use of the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 with IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html). This is probably to be the most commonly used lens on the C300, with good reason; many feel it is sharper than the 24-70, it has image stabilization, it's a full stop faster than the 24-105 and is fair lighter and a bit less expensive than both.
So my three lenses will be:
Canon 17-55 f2.8 with IS
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
(Canon L 24 or 35 f1.4 (can't decide which just yet)
and a forth will be the 70-200L



New 24-70 is sharper, great lens without IS. Have the 17-55 and it is very good but can pick up dust and harder to zoom and pull focus.

[Bern Caughey]

New 24-70 is sharper, great lens with IS.

The new Canon 24-70/2.8 does not have IS, which is very disappointing.

A L-series quality update to the 17-55/2.8 IS would be most welcome. I love the focal range with the C300, but the focus ring needs help.

Including Canon's Hybrid Image Stabilization on all new lenses would be most welcome too.

[MattinSTL]

I've been doing sound for a company that's shooting C300 on sticks with the option of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200... so far we use 24-70 90% of the time... just like on my own Canons for stills... it's "the" lens... yeah, no IS though. BTW... somebody told me the new Canon 24-70 that's so outlandishly priced (compared to it's predecessor) would do all it's zoom and focus internally... i.e. no growing through the matte box, etc. Nope... it works just like the old one.

[Paul Cronin]

Canon:
EF 17-55
EF 14mm f2.8L
EF 24-105

[philiplipetz]

The new Canon 24-70/2.8 does not have IS, which is very disappointing.

A L-series quality update to the 17-55/2.8 IS would be most welcome. I love the focal range with the C300, but the focus ring needs help.

Including Canon's Hybrid Image Stabilization on all new lenses would be most welcome too.

Yeah, I know it does not have IS or I would be using it, the previous statement I Mande was a typo, sorry.

[Graham King]

My kit:

24 1.4L
50 1.2L
135 2.0L
17-55 IS (I use this most for run-n-gun)
24-105 IS
70-200 IS II

My next lenses:

35 1.4L II (hopefully mark ii is out before I need to buy this)
24 tilt shift
11-16 or some other ultrawide

[Paul Cronin]

The 17-55 can not be L rated due to back focus with the !D series. I just used it for three days on a shoot and it is great glass. Not sealed like my 9-L series glass but great match to the C300.

[avro]

Duclos 11-16 and red pro 17-50.
Or
Zeiss ZE 15,35,85mm

[Bern Caughey]

I'd place a vote for the following two lenses: Canon 24-105mm F/4 and Canon 50mm F/1.4.

The EF 50/1.4 focusing is a bit coarse, & needs improvement, while the 1.2 is one of the finest SLR lenses ever made.

[dustylense]

My kit:

24 1.4L
50 1.2L
135 2.0L
17-55 IS (I use this most for run-n-gun)
24-105 IS
70-200 IS II

My next lenses:

35 1.4L II (hopefully mark ii is out before I need to buy this)
24 tilt shift
11-16 or some other ultrawide

If you buy the 24 T/S, make sure it's the V2 of it as the V1 is a SOFT lens. I have all the Canon T/S lenses. 17,24,45 and 90. THe 17 is amazing and although the 45 is not L, it's super duper sharp! All T/S lenses have nice long focus rings as well.

[redhouse]

Assuming your getting the canon mount the 17-40 is parfocal and so is the 70-200. Throw in a fast 50 and supplement as you go.

Based on personal experience and several online reports, the non-IS version of the 70-200 f2.8 is parfocal. IS versions (I or II) are not parfocal.

[Pelican]

Can anyone weigh-in on the choice between the Canon L 24 or 35 f1.4? (can't afford both and need help deciding)

[Graham King]

What are you going to be shooting mostly? I know if I could choose only one, I'd go with the 24 but we need to know what you plan to shoot.

And you can always rent them before buying.

[cowpunk52]

Can anyone weigh-in on the choice between the Canon L 24 or 35 f1.4? (can't afford both and need help deciding)

I have both, and use both a lot. Build quality-wise, the 24L is much better than the 35L. I think my 24 my be a smidge sharper wide open than the 35, but I've not tested objectively. They're probably about the same.

I wanted to wait until a 35L II was introduced before I got it, but I did find I was needing that focal length too much to not have one. The 24 is fantastic, and remains one of my favorites, but it subtly feels like a wide lens. The 35 is a nice, standard FOV that is perfect for cowboy and full-body shots without distortion. Great when you want a little more room in tight spaces without making it look like you're trying to "get it all in," if you know what I mean.

There's certainly a place for both if you can afford it. However, if you can only get one, I'd get the 24.

[cowpunk52]

If you buy the 24 T/S, make sure it's the V2 of it as the V1 is a SOFT lens. I have all the Canon T/S lenses. 17,24,45 and 90. THe 17 is amazing and although the 45 is not L, it's super duper sharp! All T/S lenses have nice long focus rings as well.

Do you use your T/S lenses for video very often, dustylense? I'm curious about the practical applications for them in motion picture. I mean, I know about the "fake miniature" look that was so in vogue a couple years ago, but what are some other uses that you like to use those lenses for?

Would love to see an example or two if you have them. Thanks!

[philiplipetz]

Shane Hulbert in his recent small theater screen on his Canon 1DC short mentioned that he like using tilt shift lenses for selective focus and fake shallow DOF shots, of course he is the guy that started the shallow DOR video craze.


Do you use your T/S lenses for video very often, dustylense? I'm curious about the practical applications for them in motion picture. I mean, I know about the "fake miniature" look that was so in vogue a couple years ago, but what are some other uses that you like to use those lenses for?

Would love to see an example or two if you have them. Thanks!

[Pelican]

I do a wide variety of work, but mostly instructional videos, and some promo work for the college. If I go hand held, I use the tokina 11-16, and if I do interviews I'll go the with a 50 f1.4.
But if I'm doing a variety of Medium and semi-wide.. ?
I was trying to find out users preference to both quality of the lens, and which is more the swiss army knife, kind of the nifty-50 of the C300?

[jimagine]

Shane Hulbert in his recent small theater screen on his Canon 1DC short mentioned that he like using tilt shift lenses for selective focus and fake shallow DOF shots, of course he is the guy that started the shallow DOR video craze.

You can't really blame/credit one person for that.

For instance, we were the first people to shoot 35mm SLR primes on the original P&S Mini35 mounted to a Canon video camera 10 years ago.
And that rig cost a lot more than a C300.

[Dave ©]

Assuming your getting the canon mount the 17-40 is parfocal and so is the 70-200. Throw in a fast 50 and supplement as you go.

Can't speak for the 17-40 but the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is not parfocal. Awesome lens but not parfocal. Are you talking about a different brand?

[nigelbb]

Can't speak for the 17-40 but the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is not parfocal. Awesome lens but not parfocal. Are you talking about a different brand?Thanks for confirming this I was starting to think that there was something wrong with my 70-200mm F/2.8L II. I have seen several places where they quote this lens as being parfocal & it most definitely is not whether I use it on the C300 or my 5D3.

This lens is far & away the best lens that I own & if it wasn't so damn heavy & if I didn't have to stand so damn far back (especially with C300) I would use it all the time. I am consistently surprised looking at shots done with this lens as they stand out so much. It resolves so much more detail & the whole look colour & everything is just right. I own plenty of other decent lenses (50mm F/1.2L, 24-70mm F/2.8L, 24-105mm F/4L) but non except possibly the 135mm F/2L gives anything like the same image quality. I would be really interested to see if the new mega-priced 24-70mm F/2.8L II also has the same magic clarity.

[maarek]

Shane Hulbert in his recent small theater screen on his Canon 1DC short mentioned that he like using tilt shift lenses for selective focus and fake shallow DOF shots, of course he is the guy that started the shallow DOR video craze.

Shane the guy started it? Vincent Laforet was the first guy to shoot on the 5dmarkII and really get it publicity.

[philiplipetz]

Vincent LaForet did the first and sold it to indies and Shane Hulbert sold it as a tool for financially significant filmmaking.

[Dave ©]

This lens is far & away the best lens that I own & if it wasn't so damn heavy & if I didn't have to stand so damn far back (especially with C300) I would use it all the time. I am consistently surprised looking at shots done with this lens as they stand out so much. It resolves so much more detail & the whole look colour & everything is just right.

Same here. But it is still my go-to lens for most scenarios. Just gorgeous!


I own plenty of other decent lenses (50mm F/1.2L, 24-70mm F/2.8L, 24-105mm F/4L) but non except possibly the 135mm F/2L gives anything like the same image quality.

Given that you have the 70-200, how often do you actually use your 135? I've never used it but see beautiful images and hear rave reviews. At that same time, I hear that "it's the best lens that nobody uses."


I would be really interested to see if the new mega-priced 24-70mm F/2.8L II also has the same magic clarity.

My 24-70 II should finally arrive later this week. I'm hoping that the image is as good as the 70-200 II. If it does, I will be a very, very happy man, even without IS on the 24-70. I definitely plan to do some side-by-side shooting to compare the two lenses. I sold my 24-70 I awhile back so I can't do any I vs II comparisons. From what I'm seeing and hearing, I expect to love the 24-70 II.

[Erik Naso]

Can't speak for the 17-40 but the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is not parfocal. Awesome lens but not parfocal. Are you talking about a different brand?

Im talking about the 70-200 F4 L non IS. Its much lighter than the F2.8 and super sharp. If you dont need the speed this is a winner!

[Dave ©]

^ Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

[nigelbb]

Given that you have the 70-200, how often do you actually use your 135? I've never used it but see beautiful images and hear rave reviews. At that same time, I hear that "it's the best lens that nobody uses."I bought the 135mm before the 70-200mm but now hardly ever use it basically because the big zoom lens does gives an image that is just as good but has the convenience of the zoom. The 135mm is lighter but if I have to stand back in order to get the subject framed properly at 70mm then it's even more true with the fixed lens. If I were still just using the 5D2 then perhaps I would use the 135mm F/2 more for that extra stop of light but as it is I am using the C300 & 5D3 so the extra stop is not so important.

My 24-70 II should finally arrive later this week. I'm hoping that the image is as good as the 70-200 II. If it does, I will be a very, very happy man, even without IS on the 24-70. I definitely plan to do some side-by-side shooting to compare the two lenses. I sold my 24-70 I awhile back so I can't do any I vs II comparisons. From what I'm seeing and hearing, I expect to love the 24-70 II.I would really love to here your experiences. I can't believe that the 24-70mm V2 is more expensive than the 70-200mm F/2.8L USM IS II & doesn't even have IS. However if it really is that much better I could always sell my 24-70mm V1 as the old version is now selling at a premium & I would probably get what I paid for it so could sell it & put the proceeds towards a 25-70mm V2.

[Dave ©]

Ooh...check out this thread (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?296271-Canon-to-release-a-new-24-70-f4-L-and-35mm-f2-lenses-WITH-IS!!!). Two new lenses coming from Canon that look very promising!