C100: C100 24-105 4.0 is

S

steve_zug

Member
Who has this on the c100? Thoughts? Likes and dislikes? Honestly the 4.0 is scaring me a little but I'm also used to working with fast primes. Thanks
 
We shoot indoor events, not weddings, as a volunteer service for a nonprofit with our C100s. Use primarily the 24-105 f4 IS and the 70-200 f4 IS. The events only have normal room lighting, and the only time we had to go to ISO 12800 was when the bank of lights over the speakers went out entirely. Most of the time we are shooting at 3200 F7.1. No need to go to lower ISO and can use the DOF of smaller apertures. BTW 12800 was totally usable, the speaker area was only dimly lit. If an audience can see it you can shoot it at F4 with no trouble.

We have f1.4 primes and have never taken them out of the bag for event work, only when doing lit narrative work. What a paradox, we use the f1.4 primes when we have controlled well lit situations, and the f4 zooms for poorly lit dim events. This is the power of the C100, it just works as you need it to work.
 
Last edited:
Have it, love it. Replaced the 17-55 2.8 as my 'first choice' lens. Yes, there's other lenses in the bag, but this lens covers interviews, candids, closeups, details and general 'stuff'.

Whether the 11-16 or the 17-55 is in the other pocket depends on the situation. :smile:

The last step is to swap out the 80-200 2.8 non-IS with the 70-200 f4 IS.

f4 at the longer end, with the C100's excellent low light ability, is not to be feared. Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but f2.8 on a half inch chip camera is like f8 on an S35 sensor. To be two whole stops down from there is great.

I'm also impressed by the wide-open results. Usually, the wide-open setting wouldn't be too hot. But on this lens, I'll use it.

I have 35mm and 50mm 1.4s and a 135mm f2 when needed, but I find myself using the >50mm range a lot, where the f4 isn't so much of a hinderance - a boon, in fact. Wafer thin DoF is fine in arty dreamy sequences, but an absolute nightmare in corporate/docco interviews, especially in 1-2 man crews.

But really, really happy with the 24-105.

The one, teeny weeny, thing that's caught me out is the assumption that it's constant aperture when wide open. I'm sure I see at least half a stop carved off as I zoom in when at fully open. Not a deal breaker though.
 
Last edited:
the 24-105 is tempting me with every positive word i've heard on it. im partially satiated for the moment with my acquisition of the older but lovely 70-300 IS. even with its older IS, im amazed at how much you can do at 300mm either handheld or with a monopod.

im eyeing the peculiar but well reviewed sigma 17-70mm, which would have me covered for all but the ultrawides, for which i have the tokina 12-24 f4, another lovely bit of glass
 
Great lens. I think it's a must have for the C300 and C100. if your concerned about f4 because it's slow. The C100/C300 ISO is so clean it doesn't matter much so f4 isn't an issue. As far as esthetics you wont get that super shallow DOF but as you go past 50mm it gets more shallow and around 85mm looks great. I like framing an interview so when at 105mm I have a tight shot and can zoom out and get several different framings without refocusing since it's parfocal as well. It's also pretty darn sharp. It's an "L"!
 
AndreeOnline said:
Are you talking about the "old" 24-105L f4 IS here? Because that is not parfocal...
Click to expand...

I have a brand new one and it is. Used it the other day for an interview and reframed three times all without refocusing. Sharp as a tack.

from this thread.
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1765#post1765

"There is no official answer, because Canon Inc. won't comment on it. Based on actual product testing, though, both of these lenses are parfocal as long as you start out by focusing sharply at the maximum focal length and then zoom back to a shorter focal length without refocusing. Look at the files on a computer monitor at 100% magnification to verify.

If you autofocus after zooming out, the camera may drive the lens to a slightly different distance. This is possible because depth of field is greater at the shorter focal lengths of the zoom lens, assuming a fixed subject distance. But if the image remains sharp after focusing accurately at maximum focal length and then zooming to minimum focal length without refocusing, the lens is par focal."

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall
Director/Media & Customer Relationship
Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.
 
Last edited:
The 24-105mm seems to be the go-to lens for the reality shows using the C300.....most tell me they love the 24-70mm but they need to get a bit farther so going to 105mm answers that as the best choice for run & gun.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
Erik Naso said:
If you autofocus after zooming out, the camera may drive the lens to a slightly different distance. This is possible because depth of field is greater at the shorter focal lengths of the zoom lens, assuming a fixed subject distance. But if the image remains sharp after focusing accurately at maximum focal length and then zooming to minimum focal length without refocusing, the lens is par focal."
Click to expand...

I wonder if this qualifies as parfocal, but it really doesn't matter. If it works it works.

But to me it sounds like "critical focus will not be the same distance over the focal range, but the error will be hidden within the greater DOF of wider focal ranges"

I based my statement on tests where I have focused (manually in Live View on mk2 or mk3) on wider focal ranges and then checked only to see that 105 mm is severely out of focus.

Regardless, if it's possible to work like you describe: set focus at 105, and then use the whole range backwards and forwards with sharp focus—then that's great. I take your word for it, but I will still check to see how big the error is.

Thanks for the heads up!
 

I shoot a weekly web series and use the 24-105 F4.0L almost exclusively. It's very versatile, and actually to my eye it's sharper than the brand new 24-70 F2.8L II but that's totally unscientific. Don't let the max aperture scare you, particularly if you're shooting on a C300 or C100. The introduction in the episode I linked above was shot entirely in natural light at between 3200 and 6400 ISO, without even a flexfill.
 
Can anyone let me know if this lens loses/gains exposure stops as you zoom in/out on the C100?

I used this lens on my 550d (I really like the range and am contemplating buying one for my C100) and there was one stop difference between the long and short end even though it is a constant f4.

Cheers,

Phil
 
You lose a bit at the long end. Didn't think it was a stop but I didn't measure it consciously.

Come to think of it, perhaps it's even more related to my FS100's old FD mount Canon 35-104 f3.5, which seems to crunch up to f4 at the longest.
 
My experience when we shoot with both the 24-105 and the 70-200 F4 IS is that when when they both are at 70mm the exposure is different, even when I expose against a gray card. It is definitely more than half a stop difference, I remember times where it seemed to go to a full stop, but I was not trying to exactly match the exposures, only do a WFM look. So there is definitely a variation in the exposure, and this drives me crazy. Might as well have the otherwise excellent 15-85 that admits it is a variable f stop. How much slower is it really? What seems to be a fill stop may not be since our cameras where not setup to show subtle f sop differences, only the nearest average f stop. I may get the time to try to run some tests this weekend. Perhaps this is why Canon appears to be dumping the 24-105 in favor of the 24-70mm F4.
 
Last edited:
I apologise but I have to revive an old topic!

Has anyone tried the 24-105mm against the 24-70mm ii on the C100? I'm KIND OF happy with the 24-105mm but I cannot get over the fact that the 24-70mm might offer a significant increase in IQ.

I'd like to have some thoughts of the two lenses up against each other completely ignoring the IS and price difference which always comes up. Obviously we're not talking about a 20+ MP full frame DSLR and I really would like to know if the 8MP S35 C100 sensor is good enough to appreciate the IQ gains of the 24-70mm or is it a wash?
 
draculr said:
Obviously we're not talking about a 20+ MP full frame DSLR and I really would like to know if the 8MP S35 C100 sensor is good enough to appreciate the IQ gains of the 24-70mm or is it a wash?
Click to expand...

More importantly, I'd say, the 24-70 II lacks IS.

I would give up the long end for the increase in IQ if I could. I'd also be willing to pay even more and carry a heavier lens if they would put IS on the 24-70. But I just can't give up IS for filming. There's just too much micro shakes when hand holding.

If you're almost always on a studio setup with a rig and tripod, well...

That said, I compared the Sigma 35mm (top performing prime) to the 24-105 in 4k mode on the 1Dc and there isn't much between them at all. Like you say: the lenses only have to resolve 8MP (both the C100 and 1Dc shoot 4k on the sensor).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top