The other thing to remember is a lot of lenses are great in the centre (S35 area) but don't get soft until the corners in full frame.
C200: 24-70 lenses options (with IS) for C200 (or other cinema cameras)
- Thread starter teamjim
- Start date
The other thing to remember is a lot of lenses are great in the centre (S35 area) but don't get soft until the corners in full frame.
I've used my Sigma 24-70 Art on a couple of handheld events and I can say that their OS just doesn't work. It's miles worse than my regular workhorse lens, the Canon 17-55. I could almost say that while the stabilization is ON you barely notice any difference as to when it is turned off.
No idea if something like this can be helped with future firmware update?
No idea if something like this can be helped with future firmware update?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
IMHO, for the fastest autofocus, the cheap 18-135 STM IS is the fastest I have in my kit. If they would have made the new 24-70 2.8 IS USM have the stepper motor, that seems to be the fastest. My 70-200 2.8 IS has the USM but not the STM and the 18-135 STM IS focuses quicker than that lens so I would imagine it is the same with the 24-70 2.8 IS USM. Of course, the 24-70 is a better lens but for sheer speed of focusing, the cheapo STM lenses seem to be the fastest to me. I shot hip hop dancers wildly gyrating for a YouTube RED show a few months back and we had the 18-135 STM IS on our b-camera and the 24-105 on the our A and the 18-135 STM IS was so much faster focusing there was no comparison. My 17-55 2.8 IS is glacially slow to focus in comparison too.
Last edited:
npm
Well-known member
So weird the cheap lenses have the best performing autofocus. You would think the expensive L lenses would have the STM motors.
![Victor[BC]](/data/avatars/m/130/130648.jpg?1713497300){kind=avatar}
Victor[BC]
Member
brettsherman
Well-known member
The primary thing that keeps me away from this lens is that it goes out of focus while zooming. I do a fair bit of "live" zooming. Does yours do that? Is there an updated version of the lens that solves this problem?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Yes, my 18-135 STM IS does this. No idea if the newest version does it as well. If you do live zooming, you should consider the CN-E 18-80 T4.4 lens, live zooming stills lenses looks like amateur hour, that's why they invented the servo lens ;-)
brettsherman
Well-known member
My belief is zooms should either be super fast or super slow. Yes, I've given up on super slow zooms. But, I find super fast ones better manual (more organic? more interesting?) than servo zooms. I would typically turn off servos way back when I had such things on cameras. The Canon 15-85mm is pretty smooth for manual zooms. But there are sometimes I want the extra reach of the 18-135.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Not sure if the newer model of this lens does it but my version loses focus temporarily when doing any medium to fast speed zoom, it's terrible. It's like the AF mechanism gets benhind the zoom and has to catch up, really lame looking. I like snap zooms and you cannot get usable ones out of this lens.
I've tested and compared most available zoom lenses on the Canon C200 (except the 18-80mm Servo Zoom) and here's what I've found.
I don't like either the "Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS STM Lens" or the "Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS USM Lens". (I also don't like the "Canon PZ-E1 Power Zoom Adapter" for the 18-135mm USM Lens). Although both of these lenses will have faster Dual Pixel Autofocus, they do not change focus in a filmic way.
I prefer the Autofocus on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS Lens. While it is an older focusing system and technically slower, I find it focuses in a more filmic way.
Also the constant aperture on the 17-55mm is necessary for filming. There's no way to avoid ugly exposure shifts when zooming with either of the 18-135mm Lenses.
Even if you put either 18-135mm Lens on F/5.6 (which covers the whole zoom range) these lenses still have abrupt exposure shifts when zooming.
I realize that even constant aperture lenses have a loss in light levels as you zoom in, but it is much more smooth and less noticeable on the 17-55mm than on either of the 18-135mm lenses.
I don't like the Canon PZ-E1 Power Zoom Adapter because on the fast speed (which is what I would use 90% of the time) it doesn't just "GO". It starts off a bit slower and then ramps up to speed - but it is an ugly "ramp up" - useless for professional filming.
Realize that in the above scenarios I'm talking about "filming" while zooming. If you're just trying to get focus, zoom, get focus again then film, the above complaints wouldn't apply, but I find myself zooming while filming quite often.
My other "Go To" lens is the latest Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II lens. It is very quiet (if you are recording audio in camera) and it works excellently with Dual Pixel Autofocus - much more filmicly than either 18-135mm Lens.
I also owned the Sigma ART 24-105mm F/4 OS Lens and overall it was inferior to the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II lens.
The Sigma ART 24-105mm was much noisier and Autofocus would fail during random (perfectly lit - easy subjects to focus on) shots.
I also found that the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II overall was a bit brighter and a bit sharper than the Sigma ART 24-105mm. (I was expecting the Sigma 24-105mm to be sharper, but that didn't turn out to be the case).
I also owned the Version I Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 Lens with Stabilization, but its Zoom Ring was so cheaply implemented that zooms always looked jerky and bad. I sold this lens before buying the C200, but used it on the C100 MKII.
As a side note, I also find that I get great focus pulls using DPAF with the Sigma ART prime lenses such as the 24mm and 35mm.
I do wish Canon would make an EF 24-70mm F/2.8 IS lens because I prefer filming at F/2.8 for the shallow depth of field benefits over F/4 and often the 17-55mm isn't quite long enough.
When filming the Academy Awards Red Carpet I used the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS Lens (set to F/5.6) and I was able to zoom quickly In/Out using DPAF and never lost focus on any shot (which was of paramount importance).
I don't like either the "Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS STM Lens" or the "Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS USM Lens". (I also don't like the "Canon PZ-E1 Power Zoom Adapter" for the 18-135mm USM Lens). Although both of these lenses will have faster Dual Pixel Autofocus, they do not change focus in a filmic way.
I prefer the Autofocus on the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS Lens. While it is an older focusing system and technically slower, I find it focuses in a more filmic way.
Also the constant aperture on the 17-55mm is necessary for filming. There's no way to avoid ugly exposure shifts when zooming with either of the 18-135mm Lenses.
Even if you put either 18-135mm Lens on F/5.6 (which covers the whole zoom range) these lenses still have abrupt exposure shifts when zooming.
I realize that even constant aperture lenses have a loss in light levels as you zoom in, but it is much more smooth and less noticeable on the 17-55mm than on either of the 18-135mm lenses.
I don't like the Canon PZ-E1 Power Zoom Adapter because on the fast speed (which is what I would use 90% of the time) it doesn't just "GO". It starts off a bit slower and then ramps up to speed - but it is an ugly "ramp up" - useless for professional filming.
Realize that in the above scenarios I'm talking about "filming" while zooming. If you're just trying to get focus, zoom, get focus again then film, the above complaints wouldn't apply, but I find myself zooming while filming quite often.
My other "Go To" lens is the latest Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II lens. It is very quiet (if you are recording audio in camera) and it works excellently with Dual Pixel Autofocus - much more filmicly than either 18-135mm Lens.
I also owned the Sigma ART 24-105mm F/4 OS Lens and overall it was inferior to the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II lens.
The Sigma ART 24-105mm was much noisier and Autofocus would fail during random (perfectly lit - easy subjects to focus on) shots.
I also found that the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II overall was a bit brighter and a bit sharper than the Sigma ART 24-105mm. (I was expecting the Sigma 24-105mm to be sharper, but that didn't turn out to be the case).
I also owned the Version I Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 Lens with Stabilization, but its Zoom Ring was so cheaply implemented that zooms always looked jerky and bad. I sold this lens before buying the C200, but used it on the C100 MKII.
As a side note, I also find that I get great focus pulls using DPAF with the Sigma ART prime lenses such as the 24mm and 35mm.
I do wish Canon would make an EF 24-70mm F/2.8 IS lens because I prefer filming at F/2.8 for the shallow depth of field benefits over F/4 and often the 17-55mm isn't quite long enough.
When filming the Academy Awards Red Carpet I used the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS Lens (set to F/5.6) and I was able to zoom quickly In/Out using DPAF and never lost focus on any shot (which was of paramount importance).
Dustin Svehlak
Well-known member
Admittedly, the Sigma Art 24-105 is noisy but I have used it quite a bit with the C200 and the Canon 80D and I have not had any issues with the autofocus. I can't say it will auto focus as fast as Canon's native lenses, and the 17-55 2.8 IS is undoubtedly better in this regard, but I have not had the experience you describe here. I shot a live music event in very uneven lighting and it performed very well.
Make sure you have the latest firmware on that lens. Sigma has updated firmware on a lot of the Art lenses specifically to work better with DPAF cameras.
I use it on my C200 and it works well in many respects e.g. fast, silent AF but yes, it does vignette at the wide end when shooting RAW.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
My 18-135 STM IS none-Nano vignettes like crazy on my C200 when shooting DCI RAW 17:9. In UHD (16:9) with the EF-S setting, it's okay.
And OP, 24mm on an S35 imager isn't wide enough for verite type coverage, that's why many of us live with the shortcomings of the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 18-135 STM IS. If we can afford it, the CNE 18-80 is a good lens but a lot more money.
The Sigma ART 24-105mm F4 OS generally focused OK using DPAF. The problem for me was during live music performances it would occasionally just stop focusing despite ideal circumstances. Not very often, but on the flip side I've found the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS II Lens to be basically 100% reliable when using DPAF.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Actually it does have an EF-S setting but it's only for when shooting .MP4, it disappears when you switch to RAW, not sure why? That's counterintuitive, sShooting 17:9 DCI RAW is exactly when you need that little extra push in to get rid of the corner vignetting?
Last edited:
Dustin Svehlak
Well-known member
I think it's because, in theory, shooting RAW is a pixel to pixel readout of the sensor. So if you cropped into the sensor to get an EF-S field of view, you would lose some of the RAW resolution. It's the same reason they don't have a 1080p RAW option on the C200, it would be a 2x crop on the Super 35mm field of view in order to maintain a pixel to pixel readout. And in MP4 / XAVC, it's cropping ever so slightly into the sensor and then up-rezzing to the UHD resolution.