If you see any killer lightly used C200 deals...

[Barry1908]

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 wasn’t great to be fair...
if the Sigma had IS I’d be more interested... if only the 18-80 was 2.8

[puredrifting]

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.

[Barry1908]

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 I’ll just have to rent it myself and give it a run... When I’m 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,

[vertigoanton]

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/

[puredrifting]

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

[alaskacameradude]

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.

[Barry1908]

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.

I’ve 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.

[ahalpert]

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

[chris f]

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.

[Jim Feeley]

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.