Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    455
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ozmorphasis View Post
    I just don't get why this incredibly useful doc style workhorse lens doesn't exist. The entire video world would be all over it. Just look at how many film makers who can afford a C300 mk1/2/3 have owned or currently own the 17-55mm f2.8. Obviously, it's a needed combo of range, speed, and OIS. But it's such a compromise compared to what could be done. Ok, rant over!
    i will bang this drum with you. You'd think since the lens came out in 2006, Sigma or someone would've made something better.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    Just like with cameras, they can't give us a lens that good because we'll stop buying lenses.

    Of course they can make it, but they won't.

    Some lenses will be f/2.8.
    Some lenses will have the reach.
    Some lenses will have the IS.

    ___

    Occasionally you'll see 2/3 in a nice surprise.

    That's just how it works with corporate otherwise if it didn't, and we were thinking logically, it would just be pure insanity how anyone hasn't come up with something everyone clearly wants and needs.


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

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,774
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ozmorphasis View Post
    Others have already pointed out the optical pros and cons of the 17-55mm. My biggest gripe with the lens aside from it's OK-but-not-spectacular optical performance is the mediocre manual focusing. The focus ring is small (I don't like lenses that prioritize size of zoom ring over focus ring), and the manual focus feel is just not great compared to some other Canon glass. Its throw is also very small and particularly narrow in some important parts of the focus range, so fine tuning focus can really remind you that you are not on a video centric manual lens, in contrast with a lens like the 70-200 L, which has a great focus ring feel.

    I keep saying this, but someone needs to come out with an aps-c/s35 lens in the 17-55 range that is 2.8 with all of the other qualities of the Canon 18-80. The latter is T4.4, which isn't always enough speed, the other cine options like the Fuji MK are great, but no OIS and won't work on EF because of flange distance, and all of the 17-55-ish 2.8 still lenses are pretty mediocre for manual use (Canon, Sigma, Tamron).

    I'm actually shocked that no one has tried to tackle that so far. I must be missing something since I'm not an optical designer. Yes, an f2.8 lens will be bigger, but I'd be happy with a fuji mk that had OIS, and as much as I love the 18-80's range, I'd happily give up a bit of that reach to have f2.8.

    Anyway, I think I've said this exact thing on like 38 different threads, so my apologies for the broken record. I just don't get why this incredibly useful doc style workhorse lens doesn't exist. The entire video world would be all over it. Just look at how many film makers who can afford a C300 mk1/2/3 have owned or currently own the 17-55mm f2.8. Obviously, it's a needed combo of range, speed, and OIS. But it's such a compromise compared to what could be done. Ok, rant over!
    I agree a lens like that would be cool as another choice but at that point it's likely going against a 2-lens set up. At which point I'd probably still stick with 18-35 for "wides" then carry a second lens for close up shots.

    I'd personally rather an 18-80 T2.95, which is bigger than the 18-80 T4.4 but smaller than the 17-120, without the same price tag but doubt canon will make one given their current offerings.

    New Zealand's 18-80 is an amazing deal. Too bad the only creative brief these days for long form news is "shallow depth of field".


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Default
    The combination of the Canon focal reducer with the 24-105mm f/4 lens was a big factor in my decision to go with the C70, and I'd highly recommend it if you ever find yourself with an RF mount body (rumor has it that the next C300 will be RF). It's like having a 17-70mm f/2.8 lens with great stabilization and excellent autofocus, and it never comes off my camera.

    Otherwise, my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX HSM has been a good alternative to the Canon equivalent. The corners are slightly dark shooting DCI 4K on my C70. DPAF works well, though it is a little noisy (probably no worse than your Canon). And it has a short focus throw. But I haven't had any complaints with optical performance. There are definitely worse ways to spend two hundred bucks.


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

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member chris f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,486
    Default
    Too bad the only creative brief these days for long form news is "shallow depth of field".
    As much as I LOVE my 18-80, getting it on sets is always an uphill battle because the director always wants to shoot wide open with as shallow depth as possible. This always sparks the conversation in my head “ do you want the shot to look really great and capture exactly what we need? Or do you want it to look shaky, hunting for focus, and looking like it was shot on a 5D?” Call me crazy but I think the audience would prefer option one


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by chris f View Post
    As much as I LOVE my 18-80, getting it on sets is always an uphill battle because the director always wants to shoot wide open with as shallow depth as possible. This always sparks the conversation in my head “ do you want the shot to look really great and capture exactly what we need? Or do you want it to look shaky, hunting for focus, and looking like it was shot on a 5D?” Call me crazy but I think the audience would prefer option one
    If there was a worldwide case study, most brains would likely prefer the look of option 2 (which also doesn't need to be shaky or hunting for focus when using the right cameras and tools).

    Sometimes it feels good to slap a rig on the shoulder and ruggedly blue-collar it out in the field with IS, but it can be just as nice using a small AF prime on a gimbal.

    ___

    As far as the news, I can't believe how much shallow DOF has made it into this part of video production in the last year.


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

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,353
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    If there was a worldwide case study, most brains would likely prefer the look of option 2 (which also doesn't need to be shaky or hunting for focus when using the right cameras and tools).

    Sometimes it feels good to slap a rig on the shoulder and ruggedly blue-collar it out in the field with IS, but it can be just as nice using a small AF prime on a gimbal.

    ___

    As far as the news, I can't believe how much shallow DOF has made it into this part of video production in the last year.
    I chalk part of that up to the fact that they can buy little s35/FF cameras way cheaper than real ENG cameras, plus it's a monkey-see, monkey-do business.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    At one point do the other cameras become accepted as the real ENG cameras while the ENG cameras become footnotes? (Because they can't anymore provide the type of pictures that are desired.)

    If someone would like color, they can't use B&W...

    Not that everyone is asking for full-frame (I presume), but if that's their decision then the other cameras will not cut it anymore.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,609
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    ruggedly blue-collar it out in the field with IS
    NorBro Antoinette strikes again. That gave me a good chuckle.

    I see both sides of the coin: the importance of all the aspects of image creation that aren't shallow DOF (and the undesirability of too shallow DOF), and also the fundamental impact that selective focus has on viewers.

    But I think it's worth looking at our still photographer comrades as an indicator of where trends go with fewer limitations on production. In other words - still photographers can have lightning fast AF or good MF, super duper resolution, bodies as small as they want to go, sensor sizes of any format they like. And what do they go for?

    By and large, I think full-frame 35 is far and away the most popular format to shoot with in photography. Some medium format. But vanishingly little shot smaller than FF. Sure - they don't have the same focus needs for evolving scenes and multiple characters as we do. But they like the FF look.

    And then resolution - I remember reading that the promo photographer for Breaking Bad sent back his latest and greatest 100MP Hasselblad to the rental house in exchange for the previous 70 or 80MP version because it was annoyingly detailed.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    lol. FTR, I see both sides too. Everything cannot have shallow DOF all the time...would cause a headache.

    Ironically, 90% of what I watch is deep (sports, old shows/sitcoms on in the background).


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •