Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    134
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    I'll check that out, I've been ignoring Facebook for 2020 but I might be on that already. My alternative to the EF S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is now the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4,
    although 18mm on S35 isn't very wide, really loving this lens, it is so much better than the EF S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.
    But the CN E, even used is still $3k to $4k and it's definitely big and heavy compared to still lenses.
    Maybe the Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8?

    Even though, I have bought the CNE, I also still carry my Canon still prime package to every shoot, EF 28mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.8
    I shot a nice outdoor testimonial the other day with the 85mm f/1.8 and used the 50mm f/1.8 STM the week before for a sit down interview. Even though
    I have plenty of zooms, I still prefer primes, when I can. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, sharper. Zooms suck in comparison but they are a lot handier and more flexible.

    Thanks for the tips there, I just did an edit with 9 days of footage supplied to me. f5 with 20-120 and a c100mk 2 with the 18-80 and found it to be very uninspiring... which was disappointing... operator wasnít great to be fair...
    if the Sigma had IS Iíd be more interested... if only the 18-80 was 2.8


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,333
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry1908 View Post
    Thanks for the tips there, I just did an edit with 9 days of footage supplied to me. f5 with 20-120 and a c100mk 2 with the 18-80 and found it to be very uninspiring... which was disappointing... operator wasn’t great to be fair...
    if the Sigma had IS I’d be more interested... if only the 18-80 was 2.8
    I've seen so much footage shot with the "right" gear that has looked like garbage. If anything, overall, I would posit that the lighting skills of the average shooter are getting worse,
    not better. So many shooters think that fast lenses and super low noise/high ISO ability are a substitution for hauling in a boatload of G&L and knowing how to light effectively. To me,
    that's usually just laziness, unless you are shooting a fast moving documentary where you are following subjects around many locations in real time. But even then, knowing where to
    move and place the camera in relation to the available light isn't a skill that a lot of shooters have. I see a lot of missed opportunities in event and documentary footage.

    If the 18-80 was t/2.8, it would weigh about 12lbs and cost about $20k. A lot of people don't understand this. Even though it is slow, that's part of what makes it a unique and special lens,
    for what it is and what it does, it's incredibly light and cheap. I too wish it was a bit faster, but Canon did the best that could be done with the parameters and so far, nobody else has even
    come close. It's pretty much the perfect documentary all arounder if you light your scenes. I am comfortable with shooting my C200 and 300 MKII up to ISO 1600-2500 which can get me
    through most scenarios I shoot in where it is minimal lighting or not lit.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    134
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    I've seen so much footage shot with the "right" gear that has looked like garbage. If anything, overall, I would posit that the lighting skills of the average shooter are getting worse,
    not better. So many shooters think that fast lenses and super low noise/high ISO ability are a substitution for hauling in a boatload of G&L and knowing how to light effectively. To me,
    that's usually just laziness, unless you are shooting a fast moving documentary where you are following subjects around many locations in real time. But even then, knowing where to
    move and place the camera in relation to the available light isn't a skill that a lot of shooters have. I see a lot of missed opportunities in event and documentary footage.

    If the 18-80 was t/2.8, it would weigh about 12lbs and cost about $20k. A lot of people don't understand this. Even though it is slow, that's part of what makes it a unique and special lens,
    for what it is and what it does, it's incredibly light and cheap. I too wish it was a bit faster, but Canon did the best that could be done with the parameters and so far, nobody else has even
    come close. It's pretty much the perfect documentary all arounder if you light your scenes. I am comfortable with shooting my C200 and 300 MKII up to ISO 1600-2500 which can get me
    through most scenarios I shoot in where it is minimal lighting or not lit.


    Yes, just wishful thinking , at 2.8 it would basically be 90% 17-120 and that is heavy and expensive. Sounds like Iíll just have to rent it myself and give it a run... When Iím super run n gun and and need to just get the shots done the Tamron 16-300 comes out, not as bad as you would think, and the non Canon AF has a nice slower organic pull with DPAF,


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    129
    Default
    PD - I know you mentioned leaving Facebook, but this just popped up and thought it might be worth your time. C200B for $2700 (!!!!!!!)

    https://www.facebook.com/marketplace...6247594542634/


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,333
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by vertigoanton View Post
    PD - I know you mentioned leaving Facebook, but this just popped up and thought it might be worth your time. C200B for $2700 (!!!!!!!)

    https://www.facebook.com/marketplace...6247594542634/
    Thanks man, but that's a C200B (good deal), but I would need a regular C200, I actually use the handle, grip, screen and EVF. I saw a nice C200 on Ebay go for $3,749.00 today, I bid but I didn't want to go that high, I topped out at $3,600.00
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post

    If the 18-80 was t/2.8, it would weigh about 12lbs and cost about $20k. A lot of people don't understand this. Even though it is slow, that's part of what makes it a unique and special lens,
    for what it is and what it does, it's incredibly light and cheap. I too wish it was a bit faster, but Canon did the best that could be done with the parameters and so far, nobody else has even
    come close.
    I dunno that I'd go that far. Sony makes a 18-110 F4 zoom that certainly 'comes close'
    if not exceeds the Canon 18-80. Now if you are just talking EF lenses that's one thing.
    But not everyone is an EF lens shooter only.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    134
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskacameradude View Post
    I dunno that I'd go that far. Sony makes a 18-110 F4 zoom that certainly 'comes close'
    if not exceeds the Canon 18-80. Now if you are just talking EF lenses that's one thing.
    But not everyone is an EF lens shooter only.
    Iíve used the Sony 18-110 with the fs7and found it to
    be sloppy to in the zoom and focus and also found the image pretty uninspiring too.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,045
    Default
    You may want to wait until April. Apparently the c200mk2 is coming, which should cause c200 prices to hit rock bottom https://www.canonrumors.com/the-cano...anon+Rumors%29


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member chris f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,448
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskacameradude View Post
    I dunno that I'd go that far. Sony makes a 18-110 F4 zoom that certainly 'comes close'
    if not exceeds the Canon 18-80. Now if you are just talking EF lenses that's one thing.
    But not everyone is an EF lens shooter only.
    Keep in mind f/4 = T4.4 on the canon lens, so despite the lower number on the Sony lens you’re not actually gaining any increase in exposure.
    Director | Making Lemonade: Our Covid 19 Story
    (warning: this film contains 0% politics, 0% conspiracies, & 100% optimism)


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,019
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    You may want to wait until April. Apparently the c200mk2 is coming, which should cause c200 prices to hit rock bottom https://www.canonrumors.com/the-cano...anon+Rumors%29
    Will be interesting to see if the C200mk2 has an RF or an EF mount. I can see arguments each way, but since the rumor is it won't be announced/available until April...
    And I hope they add TC I/O, but I can see why they wouldn't want to.

    Anyway, good luck Dan with your hunt for more C200s. When you find one, please let us know how much you paid.
    ----------
    Jim Feeley
    POV Media


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •