C100: Best all-around starter lens for C100

Like it or not probably the best all around lens is the 24-105. I have the 70-200 f4 IS and love it more than any lens, but when I take my camera out for a stroll I grab the 24-105. I shot a video the other night with the Canon 1.4 and screwed up the focus and had to trash the video. I was shooting a guitar video hit the auto-focus, it focused on his shirt instead of the guitar....... there's a very low margin of error on these fast lenses.... like and inch or two. If you stop it up to f4 then what's the point? The canon f1.8 and 1.4 are cheap enough to add on later to you collection.
 
Do you need very high build quality for rough environments? If not, I suggest you get an 18-135mm STN IS lens instead of the 24-105. It has similar IQ, has better satblization, works better with Dual Pixel AF, a lot wider and longer, it's a much more suitable range for the c100.

The 24-105mm has always been my workhorse, but I broke one and bought an 18-135mm just for fun, and I found it to be better, and more useful than my 24-105mm, it really does replace it if you don't need the build quality (the 18-135mm is not toy either)

Even if you're converned with the variable aperture, the 24-105mm is not a constant aperture, it gets darker when you zoom, so does the 18-135mm, but with the C100 mkII, it has a feature that can be turned on in the menu which compensates with gain for the 18-135mm variable aperture, so when you zoom it doesn't get darker, works perfectly.

So my suggestion, 18-135mm STM for walkaround lens, a 50mm 1.8 for beauty lowlight shots, and a 10-18mm STM for ultra wide angle. The three cost a miniscule amount of money and deliver brilliant image quality.
 
+1 for the 18-135. It's a dirtbag lens in the grand scheme of things, but covers a lot of ground and is actually pretty sharp when stopped down a little. Run and gun with that thing, primes for controlled interviews, and Bob's your uncle.
 
I did a two week run and gun in South Africa in November with a pile of lenses. The 24-105 works on the 5D MKIII but on the C100, yuck. The 18-135 STM was my go to for b-roll and I used primes for our interviews and the 70-200 2.8 IS for longer, more observational stuff. 18-135 is not built that well but the image and IS are good and the AF is constantly useful when you are running and gunning. I've never liked the 24-105 but my client with the 5D MKIII has one so I use it. I agree that it is as mediocre as a lens can get, I like the 18-135 much better, other than build quality. I picked up the 18-135 with the C100 MKI on that $5,200.00 deal last Fall before the C100 MKII came out and it is a great lens for the $200.00 I paid for it.
 
Interesting read. Making me think maybe I should get the 18-135 instead of the 24-105 with the C100 mark ii. I've got access to the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 all @ 2.8, so my need for speed is satisfied. I'd prefer a slightly wider lens and better IS for a walkaround option. I had an 18-135 on my 7D years ago and it was delightful, particularly for quick stand up interviews.
 
The 18-135 STM has significantly better IS than the 24-105 for video. Like, surprisingly better when you are used to trying to handhold the 24-105. It's biggest problem is the velocity based focus by wire if you are trying to follow anything. In any case, it can be found so cheap on ebay that there is almost no reason not to own it.
 
Thanks, all, for the replies to this thread. Based on your feedback, and a quite a bit of research on my own, I'm down to the Tamron 24-70 2.8, and the Canon 18-135 stm. The Canon is 600 clams cheaper on B&N, but some of the reviews I've read have mentioned it's prone to dust getting into it's innards. Anyone experienced this in the field? The pricetag, along with the focal range and reportedly smooth IS is tempting.

The Tamron is also tempting. Tons of solid reviews, great glass, great bokeh, smooth autofucus, great in lowlight, especially with handheld. I've got no problem paying 600 dollars more for a lens if I know it'll be the one I use the majority of the time.

Only one member on here mentioned the Tamron. Anyone else have any experiences with this lens?
 
Those are 2 very different lenses. The 18-135 is a 7.5x zoom and the Tamron a 3x zoom. They will not serve the same purpose. Not to mention the Tamron is 2.8 and the Canon is a variable aperture lens (3.5-5.6). The Canon 18-135 is a good lens in situation when you can't change lenses...the Tamron not so much.
 
wish canon would do the equivalent of this one :

30587d1377664932-new-sony-e-mount-power-zoom-lens-18-105-f4-under-600-sony-e-pz-18-105mm-f4-g-os.jpg
18-105 with a constant F4 and motorized zoom...
 
jthabel said:
I'm down to the Tamron 24-70 2.8, and the Canon 18-135 stm.
Click to expand...

If you plan to take advantage of the Dual Pixel Autofocus on the C100 Mk II, I would suggest going with a Canon lens over a Tamron. I own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and it does not work well with the DPAF or the push autofocus features. All of my Canon lenses work very well with these features and I use them on pretty much every shoot. The Canon 18-135 is an STM lens so it will allow face tracking with the C100 Mk II which could be a helpful feature depending on what type of work you do.
 
Yup, they do, as do BMD and Red people... The internet, sadly, is a safe place for people to grouse and state opinions as facts.. personally, I've given up on thses forums - I search for pertinent information (usually found on the first page) then stop as soon as I hit the inevitable complaint... The original DVXUSER site was a great thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top