C100: Best all-around starter lens for C100

J

jthabel

Well-known member
Greetings, all. I'm planning on picking up a C100 mark2 in the months to come, and I'm trying to decide on the ideal starter lens. The Canon EF 24-105mm f.4 L lens is the one I'm leaning towards, mostly because of the discounted B&H bundle, but I'm open to any other similar lens with, say, a 1500 dollar top end price tag. This is for general, all-around usage for narrative filmmaking, but superior low light performance is a must. Recommendations?

Also, what are the top three supplemental lenses (primes or other) that you'd recommend in a similar price range?
 
Some, like me, prefer the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS as THE go-to lens on the C100. Doesn't get you the reach the 24-105 has, but it goes a little wider, it's a stop faster, and the IS works great for handheld work.
 
24-105 f4 is without a doubt the goto lens for the c100(even canon agrees, see their camera packages).. Out of the 12-14 lenses in my bag if I'm running around and can't carry much, the 24-105 always goes with me. If the long reach is not needed then the sigma 18-35 1.8 is also a great option. It's made in Japan(feels very good in the hand) and is a solid replacement for 3 quality primes(28,35,50).
 
See, I find the 24-105/4 too slow and not wide enough in a majority of cases. It's also not the sharpest in the toolbox. I've run the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on my C100s since I got rid of the 24-105 shortly after I bought it.

17-55mm, 50/1.4 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II covers a bunch of my work. I just added the 10-18mm STM lens for the "ultra wide" look as well as use on a Ronin (face detection AF is AWESOME on the Ronin for walk-and-talk interviews).

If I was doing mostly narrative instead of more documentary style stuff, I'd lean towards some cinema primes of some sort (either Rokinon or better) for repeatable focus. As it is, for run and gun stuff I'm pretty happy with my kit.
 
I will never own the Canon 24-105 f4 L lens, I really dislike it! Awful for low light, advertised as a constant f4, but it isn't even close to constant, and not very sharp -> all sacrifices you make to get the range.

In the sub 1500 price range -> Get the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

Pros:
2.8 all the way through
VC (Tamron's version of IS) -> and its very good -> The Canon 24-70 doesn't have IS
Much sharper than the 24-105 f4, and almost identical sharpness to the Canon24-70 f2.8
Cost -> Much cheaper than the Canon 24-70 2.8

Cons:
Focus ring goes backwards.. annoying at first, but you get used to it.
Range -> Not quite as large as 105, but I'd sacrifice that 35 extra for the quality

I've shot the past year with the Tamron and couldn't be happier.
 
For a run around lens I'd recommend the 18-135 stm over the 24-105, it's wider, longer, cheaper, lighter and the af works great. The 24-105 gets darker at the tele end, the 18-135 is slightly slower but itts negligible and at 5.6 you can zoom through without exposure shifting. Suppliment with the 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8 mk2 and a 50 1.4 and you can cover a lot of ground
 
What ever your decision, please try to rent the lenses before listening to us. Reading some of these other posts makes me think they either had bad copies, were incapable or are just regurgitating misinformation for the fun of it. Rest assured that lens is a true work horse and many people out there get by just fine with it :)

ps: the Nikon 35mm is a real gem as well!
 
ade4all said:
For a run around lens I'd recommend the 18-135 stm over the 24-105, it's wider, longer, cheaper, lighter and the af works great. The 24-105 gets darker at the tele end, the 18-135 is slightly slower but itts negligible and at 5.6 you can zoom through without exposure shifting. Suppliment with the 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8 mk2 and a 50 1.4 and you can cover a lot of ground
Click to expand...

Another vote for the 18-135 stm as a great all purpose lens especially for handheld or run n gun. One thing not mentioned above is that the IS is much better on the 18-135 than the 24-105. I've owned and used both the 24-105 and the 17-55 2.8 on my C100 and I like the 18-135 better than both for all around versatility— it has the best IS and biggest range of the three and only gives up a little image quality for the versatility. I combine it with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 for when I need a faster aperture or better image quality and a 70-200 2.8 II IS for more reach and/or image quality. Makes a great 3 lens kit.
 
thanks for the insinuation Leogrey, maybe my friends 24-105 wasnt a perfect copy but the darkening of the image when zooming in was frustrating and is well documented, as is that the f4 is actually closer to f5 to start with. Not denying its a good lens and many folks use it happily, just letting the op know there is a cheaper alternative that may suit their needs more, that is designed more specifically for c100 size sensor in its wider focal length, and takes best advantage of Canon's af system. Manual focus is not as nice as with the 24-105 though
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know how to use a lens and I've used a couple of copies of the 24-105L in my time. The 24-105 is a mediocre lens. Other than in build quality, it doesn't really deserve the L designation. Both of the ones I used darkened considerably as you zoomed and had both CA and barrel distortion problems at 24mm... which is an issue because you're going to be sitting at 24mm a LOT because this lens isn't very wide.

It's also not all that wide on a S35 sensor, so it makes for a clumsy range. Any of the lenses that start in the 17-18mm range are going to be FAR better as a "single lens" solution than the 24-105. If you're combining the 24-105 with a FF ultra wide, then it might be livable.

The 24-105's IS is also kind of underwhelming for video use.

It all depends on what you shoot. If you're doing exclusively head and shoulders interview stuff, the 24-105 is probably ok.

The 17-55mm is a much better piece of glass. It's faster (f/2.8 is nice not just for low light, but to get a shallower DOF), much more consistent performance as you zoom, better zoom range for S35, seems to have better performing IS in my experience...
 
jbregar said:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I know how to use a lens and I've used a couple of copies of the 24-105L in my time. The 24-105 is a mediocre lens. Other than in build quality, it doesn't really deserve the L designation. Both of the ones I used darkened considerably as you zoomed and had both CA and barrel distortion problems at 24mm... which is an issue because you're going to be sitting at 24mm a LOT because this lens isn't very wide.

It's also not all that wide on a S35 sensor, so it makes for a clumsy range. Any of the lenses that start in the 17-18mm range are going to be FAR better as a "single lens" solution than the 24-105. If you're combining the 24-105 with a FF ultra wide, then it might be livable.

The 24-105's IS is also kind of underwhelming for video use.

It all depends on what you shoot. If you're doing exclusively head and shoulders interview stuff, the 24-105 is probably ok.

The 17-55mm is a much better piece of glass. It's faster (f/2.8 is nice not just for low light, but to get a shallower DOF), much more consistent performance as you zoom, better zoom range for S35, seems to have better performing IS in my experience...
Click to expand...

There is better lenses than the Canon 24-105, but mediocre...I don't think so. I would say it's a good lens (not very good...but not bad either).
 
It depends on your price range and your needs, of course, but I got my 28-135mm as a kit lens with the canon 7d years ago, and it's always my favorite walk-around lens. Really nice picture for the money, and the zoom range is fantastic. If you can spend a little more, I haven't personally used it but I imagine the 18-135mm is great as well, and the 24-70mm is very popular and a great image, if you don't need IS and can spend a little more.

All canon brand for the lenses i'm talking about
 
I suppose we can call the Canon 24-105 f4 IS "controversial". Some like it, some hate it, and the rest of us recognize it's not perfect but still use it. I find that my 17-55 2.8 looks better to my eye, but the range just isn't there. I guess in the end there is no perfect lens, or even best lens. For the best image I've found that I get it from my Canon 70-200 2.8 II, but the range is on the long end and it's heavy so even though it's the most pleasing look, I can't call it the best lens.
 
If I was only shooting events and coverage, I would probably go for the 18-135 STM. The 24-105 is on my camera most of the time, though. I actually got rid of the 17-55 because I found it too hard to focus due to the short focus throw, it wasn't close to parfocal, I tend to shoot at f/4 or higher for events, I rarely shoot wider the n24mm if a person is in the shot, and most of the time I shoot longer than 55mm if I'm shooting an interview. That's just my shooting preference and I'm sure many people find the standard zoom range of the 17-55 to be more useful.
 
Doug_EX said:
There is better lenses than the Canon 24-105, but mediocre...I don't think so. I would say it's a good lens (not very good...but not bad either).
Click to expand...

Mediocre means "of moderate quality" and has as synonyms "ordinary, average, middling, middle-of-the-road". So, I'll stand by my assertion that the 24-105L is mediocre.

It's not bad. It's not great. It's mediocre.

Honestly, the main reason the 24-105L takes so much heat is it's an L lens... and is near the bottom performance-wise among its peer L-series lenses. Most Canon L lenses have exceptional performance FOR THEIR VINTAGE. The 24-105L isn't exceptional by any means.

Another problem I have with it as an L lens is there is significant sample variation. Most L lenses don't have that problem. You know when you buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II that it's going to be a killer lens.

If you're looking for a single lens and can't switch between them for whatever reason, the 24-105L (or the 18-135 STM) is probably your best bet... but for me, a 17-55 and 70-200 f/2.8 pair gives me more flexibility. I ran a C100 for over a year with f/4 zooms (12-24/4 Tokina, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/4L IS) and I found that I really missed that additional stop, mostly for DOF control. Being able to shoot around the 35-55 range for interviews and get some nice shallow DOF while still being able to zoom a bit is very handy. 35-55mm f/4 just doesn't give me the look I'd prefer.
 
jbregar said:
Mediocre means "of moderate quality" and has as synonyms "ordinary, average, middling, middle-of-the-road". So, I'll stand by my assertion that the 24-105L is mediocre.

It's not bad. It's not great. It's mediocre.

Honestly, the main reason the 24-105L takes so much heat is it's an L lens... and is near the bottom performance-wise among its peer L-series lenses. Most Canon L lenses have exceptional performance FOR THEIR VINTAGE. The 24-105L isn't exceptional by any means.

Another problem I have with it as an L lens is there is significant sample variation. Most L lenses don't have that problem. You know when you buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II that it's going to be a killer lens.

If you're looking for a single lens and can't switch between them for whatever reason, the 24-105L (or the 18-135 STM) is probably your best bet... but for me, a 17-55 and 70-200 f/2.8 pair gives me more flexibility. I ran a C100 for over a year with f/4 zooms (12-24/4 Tokina, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/4L IS) and I found that I really missed that additional stop, mostly for DOF control. Being able to shoot around the 35-55 range for interviews and get some nice shallow DOF while still being able to zoom a bit is very handy. 35-55mm f/4 just doesn't give me the look I'd prefer.
Click to expand...

For me, mediocre as always meant less than average. But I see what you mean and I am 100% with you.
I was about to order a 70-200 F4IS and you made me hesitate...the 70-200 F2.8 is a lot of cash. I agree that in the 35-55 range or even 70-100 it's handy to have 2.8 to control DOF. The 24-105 does frustrate me sometimes regarding this. I was looking at the 24-70 2.8 too...very pricey though.
 
See, I HATE the 24-70 range on the C100. It's not very wide and it's not long enough on the other end to compensate. At least the 24-105 makes up for it's "not very wide" wide end by having a nice tele long end.

On the 70-200, f/4 was pretty usable and the f/4 70-200 twins are VERY portable. I usually end up stopping my f/2.8 down to f/4 anyway on that lens... but it's nice to have the f/2.8 around the 70-100 range to get a nice soft background when needed. 2.8 is absolutely awesome on the shorter lens though, I just could never get the shallow DOF I wanted with the 24-105.

I also got tired of switching lenses around the 24mm mark when reframing. It felt like a clumsy spot to need to do a lens swap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top