C500: Best Full-Frame AF Lenses?

D

digitalinnovations

Well-known member
Since I am considering a C500 MkII for my next camera I’d really appreciate hearing some lens recommendations; both brand and focal lengths.

I currently do not have any full-frame AF glass so I would be starting from scratch. There really only appears to be Sigma or Canon as options (if I’m overlooking any please let me know) and I’m leaning towards Sigma but I have no idea how it works with the AF in C-Series cameras as the demands are different from photography. I’m leaning towards lenses faster than 2.8 since I could leverage the AF on interviews :)
 
The Sigma's are not as fast or responsive as Canon EF glass with AF. Not to say the Sigmas aren't great, they are but you should think long and hard before jumping into all Sigma if AF is your driver.
If you want good, you want the Trinity...

1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...MI5Oq4sJeS6wIVExvnCh2Q0gMFEAQYAiABEgIb-_D_BwE
2. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html
3. Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS III USM https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1414599-REG/canon_3044c002_ef_70_200mm_f_2_8l_is.html

These three will run you close to $6k and you'll be set for shooting almost anything other than nature or sports from a long distance like auto racing.

The Sigmas are also great, especially the ART lens lineup but the AF simply isn't as good as the Canons.
 
puredrifting said:
If you want good, you want the Trinity...
Click to expand...

So Canon, much like RED, is a religion, huh? :)

Does the Canon 24-70 f2.8L II trombone / extend when zooming?

I also noticed neither of you recommended any primes (Canon or Sigma); is this just due to the flexibility of the zooms? Is there any benefit to primes (other than typically being sharper than their comparable zoom) when comes to autofocus? Obviously, I love having a zoom when running around shooting B-Roll so I’m all for it and will definitely need them in my it but I would have assumed some primes would’ve been called out.
 
I use the Sigma ART primes on my C500MKII all the time. They work great.

I also, occasionally, use my Canon L series Zooms they're OK too. The only Sigma zoom I have is the 150-600, that also works great and I'm told the Sigma 24-70 pairs really well with the C500.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
I use the Sigma ART primes on my C500MKII all the time. They work great...

....and I'm told the Sigma 24-70 pairs really well with the C500.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Liam. That now makes it clear as mud :) No I’m glad to hear they’re working great for you. Do you have any “call out” primes in the Sigma ART line? When I was initially looking I was considering the 28, 40 an 70 but now that I’m saying it out loud I’m not sure if those would be the right focal lengths on Full-Frame...I’m used to S35.

My only issue with the 24-70 is that it extends when zooming - the whole “matte box thing”.

How do you find mixing lens brands affects your footage? Do they match well or does it take some tweaking? Based on what I have seen online, it appears as if the Sigma ARTs cool off the warmer image the Canon produces out of the box...which I kind of like but I know you can push either direction in post but sometimes it’s annoying (or can be time consuming) to match things up.
 
The 85mm 1.4 is a standout lens. The 50mm 1.4 is excellent. The 35mm is probably my most used lens though the AF isn't as good as on the newer primes in the line. The 20mm 1.4 is worth the price of admission simply because it is so damn fast. Lots of people like the 24mm though I use it less than the others. I haven't got the 135mm yet or the 14mm, both are on my hit list though.

The Sigma primes are without doubt pound for pound the best AF glass you can pair with the C500MKII. Hope that's less muddy:-)
 
Haha! I just meant some say Canon and some Sigma but I know it’s based on personal experiences and that’s what matters most to me. I’m glad you put it in writing though so I can blame you later if I go with Sigma.

Thanks for the info, Liam!
 
Since you said you were looking at f/2.8 lenses, I assumed you were talking zooms. If you are considering primes, the Sigma ARTs are great and their zooms are too. If you are the kind of person who constantly buys and sells gear,
your loss will be smaller if you buy the Canons, although the Sigma ART lenses are pretty good on resale too, better than the regular Sigmas. Not sure where you are located, but of you are in Southern California, Sigma opened up
a show room in Burbank where you could bring in a C500 MKII and try every lens they make and they have a lit set there too like they would have at a trade show.

I agree with the others that Sigma is making some amazing lenses and if I was starting from scratch, I too would be hard pressed to make a choice. I own 13 Canon EF and EF S lenses and like them but Sigma makes a few lenses,
like the 18-35mm f/1.8 ART that are really considered unique and top of the line and the ART primes are amazing. FWIW, the Canon still primes too like the EF 35mm f/1.4 are magic too. I wouldn't mix and match Canon and the Sigmas,
if I had a choice, I would commit to one brand or the other for color consistency.

Nobody has asked but what do you mostly shoot? That might give us some ideas of why one line might be better than the other for you?
 
@Puredrifting: No worries, I'm definitely interested in both zooms and primes. My thoughts were, if I have good AF, why not go for faster than 2.8? That said, 2.8 on Full-Frame seems to render a DOF similar to a 1.8/1.4 anyway so I guess shooting at 1.4 your subject is just floating in blobs :)

The stuff I shoot is kind of all over the map. My business is one of those "one stop shop" kind of deals where I produce, shoot, edit and I do a mix of commercial, online / social content, corporate, etc. Most of my shoots are not heavily crewed so I have to work fast and a lot of my B-Roll is docu-style with very minimal lighting so I love using zooms for that quick flexibility.

I am located in the middle-of-nowhere Illinois so getting hands-on is not possible so I do most of my research online and by tapping guys like you for their experiences - which are truly better than most of the stuff posted online because the majority of them are "bought and paid for" by the manufacturers these days. Kinda sad but I get it...make that money while you can.
 
The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L is a no brainer. You’re hard pressed to find someone that shoots with a C that doesn’t have a version of the 70-200 2.8. If you need reach, the Canon 100-400 L vII is an awesome lens. FAST focus and is almost a macro lens(only slightly kidding). For run & gun versatility, and it may not be sexy, but the 24-105 f/4 L will let you do a lot with just one lens. I have a client that is a mix of Canon C300/300 II’s and Amira’s and when I have to shoot one of the C’s, I usually leave the 24-105 on 99% of the time whenever I’m running around handheld. The Canon 85 1.2 L is beautiful, plain and simple. But AF is SLOW as molasses in January. The 85 1.8 is a fraction of the size, weight and cost and focuses much closer and faster. The look of the 1.2 wide open is unbeatable, but the 1.8 is actually more fun to shoot with(at least with stills), because you can get closer and focus is faster.

Sigma makes some beautiful lenses, now. I’ve never tried the ART still lenses, but I have used their cine primes, which are based on the ART lenses and they’re gorgeous and match with Canon’s CN-E primes really well. If I was buying new from scratch, I’d be leaning heavily towards the Sigma’s, today. Of course, these aren’t AF still lenses, just trying to convey the quality of the glass.
 
Run&Gun said:
...The Canon 85 1.2 L is beautiful, plain and simple. But AF is SLOW as molasses in January.
Click to expand...

I can't speak firsthand but that sounds very slow!

Run&Gun said:
...If I was buying new from scratch, I’d be leaning heavily towards the Sigma’s, today. Of course, these aren’t AF still lenses, just trying to convey the quality of the glass.
Click to expand...

I completely follow what you're saying; I've heard a lot of great things about the cine lenses and that it stems from their stills glass but having not used them (or AF general) I was curious how they stacked up again the Canon's and it sounds like pretty well.

As to the 24-105...man that focal range is just the best, isn't it? You can just cover so much ground with it! The f4.0 is not great but I guess with something like the C500 MkII you can offset that "shortcoming" with ISO but you're still lacking that shallower DOF "look" unless you're at the longer focal lengths.

Everything is a compromise...fun...isn't it?
 
digitalinnovations said:
@Puredrifting: No worries, I'm definitely interested in both zooms and primes. My thoughts were, if I have good AF, why not go for faster than 2.8? That said, 2.8 on Full-Frame seems to render a DOF similar to a 1.8/1.4 anyway so I guess shooting at 1.4 your subject is just floating in blobs :)

The stuff I shoot is kind of all over the map. My business is one of those "one stop shop" kind of deals where I produce, shoot, edit and I do a mix of commercial, online / social content, corporate, etc. Most of my shoots are not heavily crewed so I have to work fast and a lot of my B-Roll is docu-style with very minimal lighting so I love using zooms for that quick flexibility.

I am located in the middle-of-nowhere Illinois so getting hands-on is not possible so I do most of my research online and by tapping guys like you for their experiences - which are truly better than most of the stuff posted online because the majority of them are "bought and paid for" by the manufacturers these days. Kinda sad but I get it...make that money while you can.
Click to expand...

www.lensrentals.com is kind of a genius resource. Rent before buying. Make your short list, rent 'em, shoot tests and then get out and shoot a short film, music video or whatever and see how they perform in the real world
with your weapon of choice. So you don't already own the C500 MKII? What do you have now? Something with an EF mount?

It's not my favorite lens but the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II is a very useful lens. 24mm on FF is decently wide angle, the lens is sharp, well built and relatively cheap, especially if you score a white box version that is normally bundled
with a new camera in a package. A lot of people who buy these packages already have one or a similar lens so you can get some really great white box deals. If you buy that lens, make sure you get the IS II version, the IS I version
was a hot mess but they cleaned up and fixed most of those issues for the IS II version.

If you do a lot of one man band shooting, I would tend to rely on the zooms more. The primes look a bit better, but the down time to swap them out can be oppressive in OMB situations. Nothing wrong with high quality zooms. I've done plenty
of OMB shoots with only the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and with very minimal lens swaps, I am covered from 24-200mm. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a surprisingly good handheld lens, it's really nice to work with and the IS II
really helps get rid of the micro jitters. The images from that lens are just superb too, it's VERY flattering to people.
 
Last edited:
While I’m a huge fan of the 25-105 it is the one L zoom that is IMO not perfect.

It’s more like t5.6 at the long end pretty bendy at the wide end and falls apart when you beat it.
 
morgan_moore said:
While I’m a huge fan of the 25-105 it is the one L zoom that is IMO not perfect.

It’s more like t5.6 at the long end pretty bendy at the wide end and falls apart when you beat it.
Click to expand...

Are you talking the IS I or IS II version? Have you shot with the IS II? I don't see those issues to nearly the extent on the IS II.
 
digitalinnovations said:
Haha! I just meant some say Canon and some Sigma but I know it’s based on personal experiences and that’s what matters most to me. I’m glad you put it in writing though so I can blame you later if I go with Sigma.

Thanks for the info, Liam!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I'm absolutely no help. LOL. Honestly, I've owned lots of Canon and Nikon lenses over the years but there's something about the Sigma Art primes that I really love. It might be the price of course!
 
I just picked up the G2 Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 for my C500mkII and so far it's pretty good. It does "trombone" when zoomed, it's got "infinity focus", and there's some obvious focus breathing but from what I researched it JUST eek'd out the Sigma and Canon 24-70mm lenses by a touch (plus I got it for a few hundred less than retail). The Image Stabilization is decent too, whereas the Sigma's is apparently non-existent. It's really just my One Man Band lens, as PD said. I actually use Nikkor primes for more "artistic" stuff just since I had them on-hand from owning a Nikon F2. In any case, the Tamron seemed to be the best "min/max" lens I could get to handle most "corporate" shooting situations.

I'd like to add that I'm a big Sigma fan, so I'm not knocking them at all. The Art series is absolutely stellar.
 
@ Puredrifitng & Morgan_Moore: Yes, I have the v1 version as well and for all it's flaws I still found myself reaching for it too often.

Does anyone know if the Sigma 24-105 is any good / better than the Canon v1 / v2?

@ Owlbot: Thanks for the recommendation on the Tamron! I will have to look at that one too.

I think what I'm trying to wrap my head around now is the difference in FOV since I am used to S35 sensors. You hear about all of these big time DP's using prime focal lengths like 28/40/70 and at least I was thinking, "Yeah, because sometimes the 35 or 50 or 85 seem juuuuuust too tight for my setups" but now with the full-frame I'm wondering if the old standards (24,50,85) are the way to go?

Since I am starting from scratch, I think regardless of brand I will probably go with a 24-70 because those seem like the most functional for the type of work I do and then grab maybe two primes that are 1.8/1.4 for interviews...what do you all think?
 
Easy way to think about it, just go "up" one lens and that's roughly the same FoV. Roughly. You can quickly multiply a focal length by 1.5 to get closer and there's mmCalc if you need to get specific.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top