C100: 24-70 f4 IS, the best RnG lens for C100?

D

draculr

Well-known member
I am moving to a C100 from a 5D3 and generally I like shooting with manual prime lenses (actually the only lenses I have left are Samyang cine lenses). However, I would like to have a good lens for more RnG style shooting and I have been weighing up all the IS enabled standard zoom lens options. It seems like the list is as follows:

Canon EFS 17-55mm f2.8 IS - I do not want to get this one mainly due to the short reach as well as not so great focusing ring. Build quality is also a big factor for me.
Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC - I have tried this lens twice now and both times I have been very underwhelmed by the image stabiliser. Even the older IS on the 24-105mm Canon absolutely destroys it from my experience.
Canon 24-105mm f4 IS - This would be my choice if not for the new 24-70. Seems to have a good IS system, is well built and has a nice focus ring as far as non-manual ones go.

But now we have the release of the new Canon 24-70 f4 IS. I see a lot of complaints about it but that seems mostly from a photographers viewpoint which is valid. But for video use you gain:
- much better image quality. No where near the distortion or CA of the 24-105 and I imagine the great C100 sensor should pick up the extra sharpness.
- a supposed 108 degree focusing ring which I don't think is far off the range of the Samyangs
- a macro feature which is a nice bonus
- but the main point for me is the latest generation 4 stop hybrid IS system (which is really the key reason for buying this sort of lens for video work)

Sure it loses 35mm but on a 1.53x crop 70mm is already long enough. Also, f2.8 would be nice but on a camera with such incredible low light capabilities f4 isn't so bad. The only thing you might really miss is being able to go wide, but I think the extra reach using a crop sensor more than makes up for that.

Is there something I am missing or has Canon designed the perfect RnG video lens for the C100 camera?
 
No, they have not.

The 24mm zooms are not wide enough on a C100. They are great on a 5D III.

I have both the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 f4. The 17-55 is great when you need a wide and faster lens. The 24-105 is fine when I need more reach.
Neither is perfect. For the C100/300 a 16-105mm f4 IS L lens that was weather sealed and had a nice focus ring would be great for run and gun doc work. But then the optics would probably suck.
and it would be heavy.

If you want the perfect run and gun lens, buy a Sony EX1R and close your eyes and believe that you are shooting with a big chip camera.
 
17-55 is the best run and gun lens for my C300. If I could have only one lens, that would be it. Build quality sucks, yes, but I don't have any problems focusing.
 
Graham King said:
17-55 is the best run and gun lens for my C300. If I could have only one lens, that would be it. Build quality sucks, yes, but I don't have any problems focusing.
Click to expand...

If I use the 17-55, do i need to keep switching back and forth between EF-S and non EF-S mode when I put my EF lenses back on?
 
draculr said:
If I use the 17-55, do i need to keep switching back and forth between EF-S and non EF-S mode when I put my EF lenses back on?
Click to expand...
Nope I've used the lens twice on the C100 and have turned off the EF-S mode and zero problems. No vignetting that I've seen in the footage.
 
Interesting, I guess I'll have to play around with that lens a bit more in person. It always concerned me hearing from reviewers that the focus ring isn't that great.
 
What do they complain about in the focus ring? Is the throw distance too short, making it fiddly? I was playing around with the 24-70 F2.8 L II yesterday on my Mark III, and the throw distance and feel of the focus ring is SUPERB. Easily the best canon focus ring I've felt.
 
Graham King said:
The C300 doesn't have that switch. I wonder what it does.
Click to expand...

On the C100, it brightens the corners to lift the very slight vignette the EF-S lenses create.

But back on topic, I have both the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 f4 - the 24-105 gets most camera time because of what I shoot. On the last event, it was the '80%' lens.

Because most of my work is 'observational Run & Gun' (filming corporate events, trade shows and the like), I don't want to be swapping lenses too much.

To the ludicrous extent of thinking about having two bodies round my neck!
 
MattDavis said:
On the C100, it brightens the corners to lift the very slight vignette the EF-S lenses create.
Click to expand...

Hey Matt, I think it actually crops the image from the sensor to achieve the result. Not sure if it degrades the image much....anyone know?

Phil
 
You're correct. Not enough coffee this morning. Now I remember comparing it to the FS100, and seeing the difference in the image size.

But there is something about vignetting. Darkened corners and all that.

More coffee. Always the best answer.
 
MPM said:
Hey Matt, I think it actually crops the image from the sensor to achieve the result. Not sure if it degrades the image much....anyone know?

Phil
Click to expand...

I'd like to know this too. Surely if it is cropping it must be degrading the image??
 
I have to agree, the 17-55 is the lens that I would use for Run & Gun work if I could only take one. the 24-105 is better built lens and doesn't suffer from the vignetting that the 17-55 does but 24 is just not wide enough on the C100 or C300. The widest end of the 24-105 on the 5D reveals a wider area of view than the 17-55 can show on the C300. It's easy to think that 17mm will be really wide but it's not.

I find the worst thing about the 17-55 is it ruins my muscle memory for focusing when I get back to my L lenses. Focussing isn't too bad, it's just a shame the focus ring isn't in the proper place :)
 
Looked at the 17 - 55 f2.8 today. I found it horrible. The focus and zoom action is nasty, and it isn't parafocal.
I will stick with the 17-40 F4L (Doesnt extend) and the 24 - 105 F4. Until canon (Or whoever.) address the video lens issues in an affordable manner.

Does anyone know if the 24 - 70 F4 is parafocal? Still, I don't see why you would choose that lens over the 24 - 105.
 
Last edited:
For run & gun shooting I use the Tokina 11-16mm and the Canon 17-55. If I need some longer lens coverage, I throw on the Canon 70-200 IS. The 24-100 is just not wide enough for wide shots and not long enough for the cool long lens shots. I've gotten used to the shitty build of the 17-55 so I don't even think about it anymore. Also, I use the 11-16 way more than I ever thought I would. That's a great lens.
 
Bought the 24-105L and 17-55 f2.8. I've been using the 17-55 most of the time. The extra wideness comes in very handy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top