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

For handheld event work, I think the 24-105 f4 is great. I wished it had the rotational image stabilization of the 24-70, but not for twice the price on the used market. Plus, the extra reach can be crucial and you will never see the extra sharpness of the 24-70 on a 1080p sensor. For narrative or cramped location work, I rely on the 17-55 2.8 when I'm not using primes. But, for event work, I try not to shoot under f4 for worry of missing focus and I try not to shoot under 24mm due to the skewed proportions, so the 17-55 doesn't offer any benefit with it's lack of reach.
 
Ok I went in and played around with a bunch of lenses including the new 24-70 f4 IS. I ended up buying it. The new IS system to me really is the key with this lens. I did a bunch of walking, panning, tilting shots and watched my footage instore on a 27" iMac to see the results. I could not see any of the warping that you usually get with IS systems.

Sure I lose out a bit on the wide and a bit of reach compared to different lenses but coming from primes and mostly keeping a 35mm on there it isn't that bit of a deal for me. The main thing was the hybrid IS and to me it is worth every cent. The macro feature is the real deal too and quite a nice bonus as is the lovely sharpness and great colors and contrast that this lens delivers.

I really urge people to try it out just to see the hybrid IS in action. I got a pretty decent deal on it ($1400AUD). I'm sure the price will drop a decent bit more but I needed it now.
 
I'm resurrecting this thread in the hope that there might be more experience with the 24-70 f4 now. How does it compare to the 24-105 for video? Is it parfocal? Is there the same amount of light loss when zooming to the long end? I know the IS and distortion at 24mm are supposed to be improved. Those things are really bothering me on the 24-105. I just wish the 24-70 had a longer focus throw.
 
cpreston said:
I'm resurrecting this thread in the hope that there might be more experience with the 24-70 f4 now. How does it compare to the 24-105 for video? Is it parfocal? Is there the same amount of light loss when zooming to the long end? I know the IS and distortion at 24mm are supposed to be improved. Those things are really bothering me on the 24-105. I just wish the 24-70 had a longer focus throw.
Click to expand...

Funny, I (the thread starter) have since accepted the consensus here on this forum that the 24-105 is the lens to go for and whenever I have it on I always make full use of the 70-105mm range.
 
But now we have to consider the Sigma 24-105 f4 too. Initial reports are positive (especially for S35 sensors) but I'm looking forward to the C100 AF upgrade, and my Sigma 50/1.4 is dreadful at AF - I only trust manual. That slightly colours my feelings about switching from the very reliable (if unexciting) Canon 24-105. :)
 
MattDavis said:
But now we have to consider the Sigma 24-105 f4 too. Initial reports are positive (especially for S35 sensors) but I'm looking forward to the C100 AF upgrade, and my Sigma 50/1.4 is dreadful at AF - I only trust manual. That slightly colours my feelings about switching from the very reliable (if unexciting) Canon 24-105. :)
Click to expand...

Since the sigma 24-105 f4 is one of the new "Art lenses" of the company, I assume it should have much better AF than the non "Art" 50/1.4. I have the 18-35 f1.8 and is absolutely perfect with the new AF system of my 70D while my other sigma lenses are just horrible! (sigma 17-50, sigma 17-70).
Of course nobody knows yet, if after the upgrade, the AF of the C100 will be working with non canon lenses as the 70D does...but that has to be tested prior to any purchase! I cant imagine why not...but you never know...
 
For a similiar price I have bought the Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8

Quality though not as good as the Canon's 2.8 it is better than the f4

Build is solid, and warrantee period is long.
 
cookinghusband said:
For a similiar price I have bought the Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8

Quality though not as good as the Canon's 2.8 it is better than the f4

Build is solid, and warrantee period is long.
Click to expand...

yes yes bro, all specs, price wise it is beterr

but the biggest downside for that is the fact that THE FOCUS THROW IS OPPOSITE ! SAME AS NIKON !

if this is the only lens you would use then I say go for it

if you have another Canon lens I say a NO NO to this Tamron one
 
Shawnvfx said:
yes yes bro, all specs, price wise it is beterr

but the biggest downside for that is the fact that THE FOCUS THROW IS OPPOSITE ! SAME AS NIKON !

if this is the only lens you would use then I say go for it

if you have another Canon lens I say a NO NO to this Tamron one
Click to expand...

Many people seems to complain about this focus throw thing. I handheld most of the time, so I want IS on a 2.8 24-70 and Canon is not offering, I just have to buy and use the next best. I own both a C24-70 2.8 I and a C24-70 2.8 II but the Tamron is much better with the IS especially for video. I wish Canon give me IS on the 8-15L and 16-35L too. Focus throw is something one can get used to. While I building IS into a existing lens require a much higher skills.

I do not find a problem with that, I am using OM , Nikon , Sony or Panasonic on the same day all the time, all have different buttons and focus throw. Not much of a problem if you use AF. Many people own more than one brand of kits these days. It will probably not a problem for them.

If someone need to use the manual focus/ zoom ring on a AF camera they are not be in a hurry. You will get it correct with say 1 second delay.

If using manual focus they probably have follow focus or other assistant, so end up not a problem either.

Just practice more and get used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top