C100: best lenses for the C100 -- revisited

J

jthabel

Well-known member
I'm coming up on a year of use on my C100. Probably one of the best/most versatile cams I've ever owned or used for the price point. I own a handful of lenses that have gotten the job done quite well, but I'm thinking about adding a couple more to my bag early this year.

What I currently have:
Canon 24-105 f4 - This lens has really grown on me over the last year. I found it to be a little soft in the beginning, but as I began to mix and match footage with other lenses, I found the look from the 24-105 to be one my faves.
Sigma 17-50 EX DC f2.8 - A surprisingly good lens for the price. Sharp. But I hate the short throw, and it doesn't produce that "Canon" look.
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 - Mostly a specialty lens, but I've used it at least once on almost every shoot. It's saved me a few times in tight spaces.
Canon 50mm 1.8 STM - My nifty fifty. I love this lens, and for 125 bucks, you can't go wrong. I've used this on multiple night/low light shoots.

What I'm thinking about getting:
Canon 70-200 2.8L. Everyone raves about it, and I've rented the IS version a couple times and loved it. How different is the non-IS in terms of optics? I'm imagining there's no difference, and I'd be msotly using it on a tripod anyway.
Sigma 18-35 1.8 - I'm about to shoot a project that's 90% nighttime/low light, and I think this guy is the way to go, but I'm worried about it having the same "sanitary" non-warm look as my Sigma 17-50.

A part of me is saying "just go with Canon lenses all around." I've rented/used the 24-70 and the 70-200 and they're fantastic.

What are the must-have lenses you guys keep in your bags?
 
Kicked the sigma 17-50 for the exact reasons you mentioned.

Canon 17-55mm - great all around lens this is on my C100 more often then not. Great color and image.

Canon 35mm F2 IS- this is the lens I use the most. Awesome image quality, light great for run and gun. The IS makes this one of my most used lenses.

Canon 50mm stm- nice little lens worth the money. I wish Canon made this lens with IS.

Saving for the 24-70 and 70-200 as well.
 
Just thinking out-loud basically (knowing you already have most of your bases covered, some of these will be upgrade ideas, others will be more specialty ideas)

Tamron 24-70 VC is up there for event work. You lose the extra range, but gain good VC (image stabilization), 2.8 all the way through, and nearly identical to the Canon version.

You might consider a few primes, maybe Rokinons to stay budget conscious. I had the 85 and it was decent. I have a Zeiss 85 now, which is delicious.

I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 macro... While I love the macro.. I hate it doesn't have IS.... something to consider a bit more on the 70-200 side ... I would certainly prefer one with IS.

Another option lens-wise is something macro -> lets you get something you wouldn't be able to get otherwise. On the cheap -> potentially use a Canon FD -> EF adaptor and pick up some old school lenses that will have a very specialty purpose or look (such as macro). Always fun to have some toys to play with (that dont break the bank)
 
jthabel said:
Canon 70-200 2.8L. Everyone raves about it, and I've rented the IS version a couple times and loved it. How different is the non-IS in terms of optics? I'm imagining there's no difference, and I'd be msotly using it on a tripod anyway.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the optical difference between IS and non IS, but the IS version 2 still has a useful feature for tripod use. It has two IS modes. One for handheld and the other for tripod. The tripod mode takes away a lot of that "bounce" that normal IS would show when you start to pan and the IS has to catch up. The tripod mode on the IS just cuts down on the little jitters that are common when you have a heavier setup mounted to a lighter tripod, or the shakes from weak tripod plates. Even a really solid heavy tripod can show some jitter if it's on a wood floor and someone walks by. These little jitters are noticeable when zoomed in at 200mm so having the option to correct for them is really handy.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Don't know about the optical difference between IS and non IS, but the IS version 2 still has a useful feature for tripod use. It has two IS modes. One for handheld and the other for tripod. The tripod mode takes away a lot of that "bounce" that normal IS would show when you start to pan and the IS has to catch up. The tripod mode on the IS just cuts down on the little jitters that are common when you have a heavier setup mounted to a lighter tripod, or the shakes from weak tripod plates. Even a really solid heavy tripod can show some jitter if it's on a wood floor and someone walks by. These little jitters are noticeable when zoomed in at 200mm so having the option to correct for them is really handy.
Click to expand...

Version 2 is just one fantastic lens....
 
Version 2 is a bit better optically, and concerning quality vs cost, I'd consider it a bargain when compared to cine lenses. On the other hand, the 70-200 non IS is supposed to be parfocal, which is a rare quality amongst photo lenses.
 
Sorry, highjacking the thread...I've moved on from C100 to FS7+Metabones SB & I've been surviving with Vers. 2 of the Canon 24-70 2.8 & Vers. 2 70-200 2.8 & just got the Rokinon 85 1.8 DS & was wondering how they all matched IF I cheap out and get the Canon $125 1.8 "nifty fifty" instead of the Rokinon 50 DS?
 
I prefer the 70-200mm f/4 IS over the 2.8. I can easily shoot handheld with that lens. Even at 200mm for short bursts of time. Also the lens I use most is the 15-85mm. It's not a constant aperture, but if you leave it in 5.6 you don't get any brightness shifts when zooming. It has a gorgeous image and is perfect for in the middle of the action shooting. The extra 2mm at the wide end makes a big difference and you have more zoom range to get in for close-ups.
 
I think a 70-200 is a must. I don't have one yet but in my last 5-10 shoots I wish I had one. I would prefer a 50-150 but Sigma has discontinued it. I also have a Sigma 18-35 and don't regret having it...really a fantastic lens. Not really a run and gun type of lens, but still a great lens to have. I thought about the 17-55 but still not sure because of the build quality. I wouldn't want going below the 24-105 regarding build quality. Thinking of buying the Sigma 50 art to fill the gap between 35-70. But I have a 24-105 and at 50mm, it's pretty good.
 
70-200 f2.8 ISii is worth the extra money. I have the 70-200f4 IS and while it is very good, the 2.8 ISii is jaw dropping. Best lens in canons set far and away.
 
I trade my 24-70 F2.8 Mark I for a 24-105, i lose one stop but now a have a 70-105mm in the end, IS IS IS IS and not too heavy.
Yes the 24-70 its more sharp in the corners at full frame 35mm, but if you find a good sample of a 24-105 the sharp in the center area super35mm its the same.
My wish was a canon EFs 18-135 F4 L IS for video 1000$....
 
PedroAquiles said:
I trade my 24-70 F2.8 Mark I for a 24-105, i lose one stop but now a have a 70-105mm in the end, IS IS IS IS and not too heavy. Yes the 24-70 its more sharp in the corners at full frame 35mm, but if you find a good sample of a 24-105 the sharp in the center area super35mm its the same. My wish was a canon EFs 18-135 F4 L IS for video 1000$....
Click to expand...
I too would like a 18-135 f4 IS...it would be great! Regarding the 24-70...I shot with a 24-70 MKII 2-3 times and the difference (compared to the 24-105) is quite obvious (contrast, sharpness, distortion, etc.). Not to mention it can blur the background quite more than the 24-105 can. The 24-105 has definitely a sweet spot in the zoom range (I would say between 35mm and 80mm), but depending on the usage, one could need both. The tamron 24-70 2.8 could be a good choice.
 
Same here. Couldn't justify the price difference and bought the 70-200 F4. The 15-85 seem to be a great choice too.
 
Doug_EX said:
Same here. Couldn't justify the price difference and bought the 70-200 F4. The 15-85 seem to be a great choice too.
Click to expand...

I really wanted to like the 15-85 but it had too much vignetting for me even with peripheral illumination and the EF-S lens setting on. Also don't care for the thin focus ring, spoiled by the proper sized ring on the 24-105.
 
homerc67 said:
Also don't care for the thin focus ring, spoiled by the proper sized ring on the 24-105.
Click to expand...
That make perfect sense. That is the reason why I never bought this lens or the 17-55 2.8. Been spoiled with my Sigma 18-35. If I could, I would buy the Canon 17-120 cine lens...but that is another story.
 
I use the Tokina 12-28 f4, Canon 17-55, 24-105 and the 70-200 f4 is. I also have a 24-70 mki that I mostly use on my full frame still camera or when I need that extra stop for video.
The Tokina is a newer lens. It's decently sharp, though not spectacular, and has a nice range for an ultrawide so gets more time than the Tokina 11-16 that I used to have. I've also been renting the 70-300 L and loving that lens for longer ranged outdoor shoots. It's very sharp, not as heavy as the 70-200 f2.8 and a bit cheaper. It's also a bit more specialized which is why I haven't purchased one yet. The other two Canon offerings in the 70-300 range are not that great, though I haven't personally tried the 70-300 DO lens. I hear it's pretty soft. The Tamron 70-300 VC is supposed to be great but it doesn't have the 2-axis/3-axis stabilizer switch that the Canon lenses have and IS is really important for 300mm x 1.5 crop.
 
I'm a big fan of Canon glass, but man, it's expensive. Believe it or not, there are still new units of the 2002 version of the 24-70 2.8L floating around out there. How does it match up to the newer version II? My instincts are telling me not to cheap out and go with the newer rev. But I'm torn between the purportedly superior optics on the Canon glass versus the price and image stabilization on a lens like the Tamron 24-70 2.8.
 
jthabel said:
I'm a big fan of Canon glass, but man, it's expensive. Believe it or not, there are still new units of the 2002 version of the 24-70 2.8L floating around out there. How does it match up to the newer version II? My instincts are telling me not to cheap out and go with the newer rev. But I'm torn between the purportedly superior optics on the Canon glass versus the price and image stabilization on a lens like the Tamron 24-70 2.8.
Click to expand...

The 24-70 2.8 MKII is poorly made for the price you pay. The rubber ring on my friend's lens doesn't stay in place and the lens is about 18 months. He takes really good care of his equiment. But optically, it's a wonderfull lens!
 
Last edited:
how is the v1 of the 70-200 2.8 compared to the f4? I am simply not going to spring for the v2 right now, if v1 and f4 are comparable would probably get v1 for the extra stop when needed. those 70-300Ls are variable aperture right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top