C100: A 2ed 24-105? Or an alternative?

N

nickbeef

Active member
I shoot with 2 Canon C100's, one a mk I, and the other a mk II.

I often do a lot of corporate, commercial, or event/doc type work where we need to get lots of nice B-roll, me and an assistant using the two cameras. Love these cameras for that type of stuff.

Lens wise I have a Canon 24-105 f/4, a Canon 70-200 f/4, a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 (and other lenses that I don't use much for this type of work like Tokina 11-16, and a bunch of vintage primes). For me I rely almost exclusively on the 24-105. The f/4 doesn't bother me as the C100 does well in low light. The Sigma's zoom and focus are horrid, so I never use it, just give it to the B-cam. The 70-200 is nice, but not flexible in most situations. I wan't my B-cam to have as flexible and usable a lens as my A cam, so the obvious answer is to buy a second 24-105 f/4.

HOWEVER, it feels a little weird to own 2 of the exact same lens. So I'm also looking at the 24-70 f/2.8. While 2.8 is nice, I've never found it necessary on the C100. Plus no Image Stabilization, which is bad, and a shorter zoom range, also bad. I'm also looking at the Canon 24-105 f/3.5-5.6. I pretty much exclusively avoid non-constant aperture lenses, the fact that this lens is so cheap gives me concern as to IQ and smoothness of the zoom and focus, but on the plus side it does have IS, AND is one of the few STM lenses that should work well with the C100 mkII's auto-focus.

Any suggestions or recomendations?
 
How about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8? It's not L glass and build, but it's pretty smooth, the IS works well, it's constant aperture, and works well on my C300. Very useful lens, IMO, and it's nice to be able to get a bit wider than a 24mm on a 1.6 crop sensor. $800 new. I use it a lot, though that's more for verity-style doc use.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...es/ef/standard-zoom/ef-s-17-55mm-f-2-8-is-usm

Or have you looked at the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 zoom? I'm thinking about getting one, mainly for interviews basically as a variable prime (so the lack of IS is not a big deal). It seems to breathe a fair amount; that's kind of a drag... But the footage I've seen from the lens looks pretty nice. $1100 new. I need to rent one and see what I think.
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/50-100mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-art
 
Obviously the answer is the Canon 18-80 t/4.4. If you can't afford it then steal it. I think Jim Martin on this forum may have a copy.
 
Oh, you want to play that way Eric? OK.
OBVIOUSLY the answer is the Canon 17-120 T2.95-3.9. :2vrolijk_08: I've worked with that lens a couple times (and been on jobs with them several more times). It's really great and useful. Also costs about $26,000 and rents for around $400/day. But we got a lot of work done with that one lens (though usually attached to an Arri Amira). https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...a/cine-servo/cine-servo-17-120mm-t2-95-3-9-ef

The Canon 18-80 also seems really interesting and I liked playing around with it at NAB. It's $5000, but is a great suggestion.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...a/compact-servo/compact-servo-18-80mm-t4-4-ef

But Nick, how much are you looking (or willing) to spend? And what do you feel is missing from your kit?
 
Go for the Tamron 24-70 2.8. It comes with IS and you can pick one up out there for around 800 bucks new on eBay. Great glass, great AF, moisture resistant, sturdy.
 
Jim Feeley said:
Oh, you want to play that way Eric? OK.
OBVIOUSLY the answer is the Canon 17-120 T2.95-3.9. :2vrolijk_08: I've worked with that lens a couple times (and been on jobs with them several more times). It's really great and useful. Also costs about $26,000 and rents for around $400/day. But we got a lot of work done with that one lens (though usually attached to an Arri Amira). https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...a/cine-servo/cine-servo-17-120mm-t2-95-3-9-ef

The Canon 18-80 also seems really interesting and I liked playing around with it at NAB. It's $5000, but is a great suggestion.
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...a/compact-servo/compact-servo-18-80mm-t4-4-ef

But Nick, how much are you looking (or willing) to spend? And what do you feel is missing from your kit?
Click to expand...

I tried out the Canon 17-120 on one shoot. Too large and heavy for lots of types of shooting. Hard to balance on the shoulder since it is so front heavy, and unlike with an Arri Amira, with a C100 you'd need a lot of counterweight to balance that lens on the shoulder if you don't want to have the actual camera body way behind your shoulder which would make the camera buttons difficult to access. The grip can't be relocated like the 18-80's grip can.

I own a Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8 cinema zoom lens which I've used on a shoulder mount before, but find the 24-105 allowed me to get my shots quicker and better for doc style shooting due to how it is much smaller, lighter, and has IS and auto-focus. I use the 15.5-47 for narrative and commercial shoots with an AC pulling focus, but the OP said he does primarily corporate, commercial (I gather lower budget without a dedicated AC), or event/doc type work, which I also do a lot of. The 18-80 also has IS and auto-focus, while the 17-120 doesn't have IS, and I've heard mixed messages on whether auto-focus works with the 17-120 on the C300 Mark II.

I'd say if I owned the 17-120 and the 18-80, I'd probably use the 18-80 way more often, and consider it the better lens for most of my shoots. I know my 24-105 gets used way more now than my 15.5-47.

The way I see it, if you want a zoom lens for narrative and commercial work, the 15.5-47 and 30-105 are better than the 17-120 with their longer focus throw and other cinema features that the 17-120 lacks, and if you're doing doc, corporate, and event work, the smaller size, IS, and auto-focus of the 18-80 often makes it a better choice than the 17-120. Which leaves the 17-120 in the smaller niche of when you need f/2.8, and perhaps a bit better image quality than the 18-80 (though I don't know if the optical quality actually is better or not; I guess I'd just assume that due to the higher price point).
 
Last edited:
I was on an event shoot last night at the LA Improv with three other crews. We all were shooting handheld, low light with on camera lighting with Canon C300/100/C300MKIIs. We all had some down time where all of the camera ops put down their camera packages on a stage to rest up for later. Out of the the four crews:

1. C100 MKI with 17-55 2.8
2. C300 MKI with 17-55 2.8
3. C300 MKI with 24-105 F4
4. C300 MKII with 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS II

All of the footage we shot will be for a one hour documentary. Thought it interesting that there were no Sony FS7s or BMDs, LA is definitely a C300 town. Unless it is for a feature, music video or commercial, almost all I ever see in LA are C300s, both MKIs and MKIIs. Once in a while C100s too. My choice is the 17-55 2.8 over the 24-105. I found myself shooting interviews with groups of people and the 24-105 would not have been wide enough to work in the spaces we were shooting in. Also Producers/Interviewers DO NOT like being 10-12' away from a group of pair of interview subjects either (which you wold have to be with the 24-105), most of the ones I work with want to be within 3-5' so the 17mm end is a must for my work. When I shoot BTS on TV and film sets, which is all run and gun, the 18-135 STM IS is superior to the 24-105. Smaller, lighter, better IS and the 18mm is just more flexible than 24mm and the extra 30mm on the long end is better. Yes, variable aperture is not my favorite but I can work with it. The old 24-105 was not a constant aperture, even though it was labeled that way, not sure about the new version.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I was on an event shoot last night at the LA Improv with three other crews. We all were shooting handheld, low light with on camera lighting with Canon C300/100/C300MKIIs. We all had some down time where all of the camera ops put down their camera packages on a stage to rest up for later. Out of the the four crews:

1. C100 MKI with 17-55 2.8
2. C300 MKI with 17-55 2.8
3. C300 MKI with 24-105 F4
4. C300 MKII with 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS II ...
Click to expand...
Shooting a lot of auto focus or were the interviews sit-down (without people rocking back and forth)?
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I tried out the Canon 17-120 on one shoot. Too large and heavy for lots of types of shooting. Hard to balance on the shoulder since it is so front heavy, and unlike with an Arri Amira, with a C100 you'd need a lot of counterweight to balance that lens on the shoulder if you don't want to have the actual camera body way behind your shoulder which would make the camera buttons difficult to access. The grip can't be relocated like the 18-80's grip can.

I own a Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8 cinema zoom lens which I've used on a shoulder mount before, but find the 24-105 allowed me to get my shots quicker and better for doc style shooting due to how it is much smaller, lighter, and has IS and auto-focus. I use the 15.5-47 for narrative and commercial shoots with an AC pulling focus, but the OP said he does primarily corporate, commercial (I gather lower budget without a dedicated AC), or event/doc type work, which I also do a lot of. The 18-80 also has IS and auto-focus, while the 17-120 doesn't have IS, and I've heard mixed messages on whether auto-focus works with the 17-120 on the C300 Mark II.

I'd say if I owned the 17-120 and the 18-80, I'd probably use the 18-80 way more often, and consider it the better lens for most of my shoots. I know my 24-105 gets used way more now than my 15.5-47.

The way I see it, if you want a zoom lens for narrative and commercial work, the 15.5-47 and 30-105 are better than the 17-120 with their longer focus throw and other cinema features that the 17-120 lacks, and if you're doing doc, corporate, and event work, the smaller size, IS, and auto-focus of the 18-80 often makes it a better choice than the 17-120. Which leaves the 17-120 in the smaller niche of when you need f/2.8, and perhaps a bit better image quality than the 18-80 (though I don't know if the optical quality actually is better or not; I guess I'd just assume that due to the higher price point).
Click to expand...

I finally bit the bullet and pulled the trigger. My 17-120 is supposed to be here tomorrow. I've demo'd it before and rented a friends a few times. It's a BEAUTIFUL piece of glass and least amount of corner fall-off(none that I've ever seen) in a zoom lens I've used. Even my $25K-$30K broadcast ENG lenses have visible corner fall-off(vignetting). It's a pig and this comes from someone that is used to shooting with a 25-30lb camera. It's not so much the absolute weight of the lens, it's the weight distribution/balance of the lens. BUT it is the closest thing to what I'm used to/like that exists in native s35 glass. A lot of people thumb their noses at it for not being a constant aperture, but I'll take that ~3/4 stop ramp at the top end for the range, versatility and convenience. You can look at it this way: you have a 17-90 T2.9 lens and a 91-120 T3.9 lens without ever having to swap lenses ; ) If you wanna go "cine", you can pull the grip off, but the down side of that, the aperture ring is completely undamped. The smaller focus throw is nice if you're shooting without an AC. There have been plenty of times I've wished my CN-E's didn't have a 300 degree throw, because I'm not shooting with an AC or FF. But most of the time with my primes, it's a sit-down situation and not a problem.

The 17-120 is definitely not for everyone or every situation, but from where I sit, it's the most versatile and useful in terms of focal range, function and form factor that I like.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I tried out the Canon 17-120 on one shoot. Too large and heavy for lots of types of shooting.
Click to expand...

Eric, I was mostly kidding. My experiences with the 17-120 have been very positive, but we were weren't working with C100s (nothing wrong with those cameras) and on each gig we a lot to do in a little time (e.g., sit-down interviews + athletes competing + OMG! That's unexpected, let's roll.....other verite-ish gigs). Slight ramp in T, but no big deal. Looked great! It was a great choice for us. But mostly, I was responding to the difference response you and I had given Nick without knowing much about his budget and not knowing more about his thoughts. And again, I said I too think the 18-80 is quite interesting. But if nothing else, I prompted another useful response from you :-)

So Nick, after reading what''s been said so far, what are you thinking? Any followups?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top