C100: c100 best zoom lens Combination

Purely on aesthetics I prefer the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS over the 24-105 f4.
For reach, well then the 55 isn't always long enough so the 24-105 gets more use.
Not run n gun, but the 70-200 2.8 IS II is my favorite.
 
rashmedo said:
@Doug_EX how do you like your 18-35mm
Click to expand...
Got it today...men, this is a nice lens. Very well built, optics seem excellent. Zoom and focus rigs are very well dampened. Can't say anything bad about it except the limted range..but that I knew before ordering it.
3 primes lenses for the price of 1 lens.
 
I use my C100 a ton for several types of shoots, from doc, to interviews and some low light and I have to say the 17-55 2.8 does not come off my camera much. Its a great lens the IS is great and the 2.8 is good enough with the low light capabilities of the C100. We have 24-105 and use it as well but I love the 17-55. I chose this one over the sigma 18-35 because of the IS and I am glad I did. The sigma is faster but the DOF is so thin at 1.8 and we dont shoot wide open like that. Some do but if thats not a concern then I would highly recommend the 17-55
 
I use the 24-105mm all the time, just a complete workhorse. I killed one lately and never got a replacement for some reason, I've been shooting exclusively on primes lately so I found no use for it. All I shoot with now is a wide angle for landscapes/wide shots, and a fast 50/85mm for closeups/people/light, never need another lens. This combo can be a Canon 10-18mm IS 299$ and a 50mm 1.8 for 100$ or a 50mm 1.4, a perfect combo for basically every,thing. That's what I love about Canon, cheap fantastic lenses.

That's my type of shooting though, many of you require only using one lens with a big range, you don't have time to change lenses, or move closer/farther to get a different fov, so for your shooting style a general-purpose zoom with IS is essential.

The options are the Canon 24-105mm, the Sigma 24-105mm, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 17-55mm IS, Tamron/sigma 17-50mm 2.8 VC,

Getting a 24-105mm:

-Advantage is having a long reach on the tele end
-Disadvantage is losing the wide angle, 24mm on APS-C is quite long, + Lowlight performance at f4

Getting a 17-55mm:

-Advantage is having a very good wide angle range at 17mm + great in lowlight at 2.8
-Disadvantage is losing the longer reach, tops at 55mm

So it really comes down to what you prefer, Lowlight performance + wide angle VS. Longer reach.

I wish there was a Canon 17-105mm 2.8 IS!
 
If I didn't have a 24-105 already, I would buy the 18-135 STM, for run and gun that is. Tried it once and didn't see any noticable difference between the 2 (there was a slight difference but for run ang gun stuff both are great). The difference between 18-24 is quite remarquable when needed.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
I wish there was a Canon 17-105mm 2.8 IS!
Click to expand...

Doug_EX said:
You've read my mind. This would be a perfect lens!
Click to expand...

Are you guys sure?

There already is the 17-120mm f2.8 (T2.95) for a S35 image circle. Adding IS would add both the the size and price.

Start by picking up that one, and then if you need a larger stabilized lens, I guess we'll just have to talk to Canon =)
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Purely on aesthetics I prefer the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS over the 24-105 f4.
For reach, well then the 55 isn't always long enough so the 24-105 gets more use.
Not run n gun, but the 70-200 2.8 IS II is my favorite.
Click to expand...

I thought I had all the lenses I needed........ ha ha! the 17-55 2.8 looks like the next one to get. It apparently works OK on super 35 sensor, but it won't work on my 5D3.... I think I will have to get lenses that work on both unfortunately.
 
Michael Thames said:
I thought I had all the lenses I needed........ ha ha! the 17-55 2.8 looks like the next one to get. It apparently works OK on super 35 sensor, but it won't work on my 5D3.... I think I will have to get lenses that work on both unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Look into the 16-35/2.8
 
God Canon DOES make our dream perfect lens! A 17-120mm 2.8 would be a heavenly match for the C line, and IS isn't really that important with such a heavy beast, it will be pretty stable handheld anyway especially with the servo Grip.

So Canon does make our dream lens, for 31 thousand US dollars :D

Now Canon, can you please make a similar APS-C 17-100+ 2.8 IS lens but for photography and not a cinema lens?

The closest one to that spec is the Canon 18-135mm IS. Which is one of favourite lenses, believe it or not I find it a better fit for the C100/300 than a 24-105mm L, or basically any other general zoom, ithe range is just fantastic from wide angle to telephoto, and has excellent slient IS, it only falls in the lowlight area. How much bigger and more expensive would it be to make the exact same lens but with a constant 2.8 aperture? That would be the perfect general kit lens for a C100-300.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
So Canon does make our dream lens, for 31 thousand US dollars :D

How much bigger and more expensive would it be to make the exact same lens but with a constant 2.8 aperture?
Click to expand...

Regarding size: I don't think Canon made the cine zoom extra large for it to look cool. It's fair to assume the size is simply the consequence of the zoom range, constant aperture and image quality specification. Designing for crop sensor or S35 allows for smaller lenses, but that is already the case with the 17-120mm T2.95.
Reducing focus throw, getting rid of gearing for zoom and aperture and choosing cheaper materials would reduce the size, but if you wanted to maintain the IQ I don't think you'd ever get a small lens. There also seems to be a large amount of glass to shift around for an auto focus system.

Obviously the size difference to the 18-135mm is huge. Lenses seem to grow exponentially in size when they try to squeeze that last bit of performance out of them.

Canon has an EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS. A mkII of this one with a constant f4 would have been pretty sweet on paper if they could keep IQ constant over the range. Then again, they just released the new 16-35 f4 IS. I've got that one. It's nice. But if Canon could have extended the range—wouldn't they already?

I also can't help thinking what a 24-105mm f4 mkII would look like. Could they surpass the transmission and sharpness of Sigma's version? Or, have we already gotten it in the form of the "new" 24-70mm f4 IS? The jump in IQ wasn't that great, if that is the case.

Lenses are all about compromises. Unless you want to pay $5000 for a 50mm without auto focus… or $31.000 for a constant 2.8 zoom.
 
What about extra long range zoom

What about extra long range zoom

Hello,
my name is Thomas, and I'm a french cameraman and journalist,

I may be criticized for speaking of that kind of lenses, but: what about the extra long range zoom, I mainly mean, the 16-300 f/3,5-6,3 Tamron, or the 18-300 f/3,5-6,3 Sigma? I know what you gonna think: these are low budget and non-pro lenses, with no constant and very slow aperture.

But the thing is, I'm looking for a run and gun lens that could fit in extreme situations, where I just can't change my lens, because of the event, or extreme conditions (dust, sand, sea...), or both, for news documentary. I own a 17-55 Canon, a 70-200 Sigma, a Tokina 11-16, all f/2,8, but i'm asking if, in these extreme situations where you can compromise a little bit the quality of your image, because of what you're filming is more important (but you still want to keep your C100, and not choose a 1/3 inch camcorder). Situations where you're afraid of:
1) missing something important
2) damaging the sensor of your C100 while changing a lens
3) damaging your 1400$ worth (if not 2000) tele zoom

As an ENG cameraman, my favorite lens is the Fujinon 16*6,3 (6,3-101 mm), whose range fits more or less with 16-300mm in photo, and that's why i'm interested in these from wide-to-tele-zooms.

I already tried one of these extreme zoom when I was filming in a British gaz rig in Tanzania, all by myself, with a C300, struggling against oil projections, salt of the sea, and whatever. I tried a Sigma 18-200, but I quickly stopped the experience, mainly because you can't keep the focus with that lens. Once you move the zoom, you lose it. Definetely too uncomfortable.
So I just had a look recently with these two new lenses at the Salon de la Photo (once again, as you maybe guess reading me, I didn't learn english in Oxford but in France...;):
speaking about the way it keep the focus while moving the zoom, the Tamron looks better than the Sigma. But its main flaw is that, to make the focus, you have to go the opposite way (the Nikon counterclockwise) that we, Canon users, are used to go.

Did anybody experience that kind of lens (and is not ashamed to speak about it...;) ? Are they definitely too bad, or were they worth it? Should it be debatted in a special thread (or has it already done before)?

Feel free to tell me, guys.

Thomas
 
Thomas, the first thing is to actually understand what you need/want. You already seem to know that, so that's great. I mean, it's much better to think for yourself than to jump on a band waggon and buy a popular lens that might not be a good fit.

In terms of optical performance: photo lenses are designed for much higher resolutions than what we use for video—even 4k—so sharpness is normally not an issue at mid apertures. Contrast might come into play—but really—for run and gun and documentary you'll probably be OK with one of the super zooms. Shouldn't be a problem to get hold of one and try it for your needs.

A lens' features generally do get better as the range decreases and price increases, but the gist of it is that the convenience of a super zoom might easily offset slightly worse performance for huge wins in usability.
 
Bought my C100 with the 18-135 STM IS package deal, got the lens for about $200.00. Left for two weeks of shooting in South Africa the next week, first time I had used the lens. With the dual pixel AF, very handy for run and gun shooting, which is what I was mainly doing. I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS in SA and used for when I needed longer reach in lower light but shot 85% of our footage with the 18-135 STM. I am pretty happy with it. Not great for low light, but it is small, light, easy to use, the IS helps and after the past four or five years with DSLR, it is nice to use a lens with AF again.

My problem is that my 51 year old eyes have a hard time judging focus on a small monitor screen so the AF really helps get me in the zone and then I fine tune manually with moving camera or subjects. I shoot a lot of interviews with subjects standing and they have a tendency to weave around, back and forth toward the lens, I have shot footage before with the 5D MKIII where I could have sworn the subject was sharp, we get back to the U.S. to begin post and when I see my footage on a larger monitor, too much of it is soft when they weave toward the lens or away. I used my trusty ancient 1970s Nikon 85mm 1.8 Ai for interviews but the rest of the main footage was with the 18-135 STM. I have used the 24-105 F4, a client of mine has one and I use it all of the time, I really am not fond of it, it is fairly large, heavy, the images are softer until you stop it down. I think if Canon sold it for $500.00, it would be bargain, but for the $1,100.00+ that is usually sells for stand alone, I think it is a ripoff personally.
 
I use the 24-105 ALL the time because it's all I have and I love it, would love a 24-70 2.8 tbh but cannot afford it. I get all kinds of results and not too shabby in low light if i'm honest

I made this with the 24-105 mostly and a couple shots with the 100mm macro. Can get some really crisp images

https://vimeo.com/109635246
 
Sickone said:
I use the 24-105 ALL the time because it's all I have and I love it, would love a 24-70 2.8 tbh but cannot afford it. I get all kinds of results and not too shabby in low light if i'm honest

I made this with the 24-105 mostly and a couple shots with the 100mm macro. Can get some really crisp images

https://vimeo.com/109635246
Click to expand...

Interesting video! Nice and sharp!

It's funny how the test shows the 24-105 is sharper than the 18-135, but people get it in their minds a bias towards one or another based on what a few others have said. Yea, for $1100 bucks there are other lenses I would consider, but most people know you can get a 24-105 for around $600...... and at that price it's a real bargain.

My favorite lens on the 5D3 is the 70-200 f4 IS, works really well for most things. I did a test between the 24-105 and the 70 -200 and the later was clearly sharper and looked to have have a more pleasing contrast. However, on the C100 the 70-200 is a bit problematic because of the 1.3 crop factor for the kind of indoor shooting I do most of the time...... so it stays on the 5D3 and the 24-105 stays on the C100. With the C100 and it's low light abilities I don't fret to much over the difference between an f2.8 or a f4, especially if I shoot indoors and with proper lighting.

Would I like a 24-70 f2.8......... yes I would, but then again there is no IS on that thing and for that price it's really not a good run and gun lens...... for that kind a shooting I'd take a 24-105 any day.
 
thomhawak said:
Hello,
my name is Thomas, and I'm a french cameraman and journalist,

I may be criticized for speaking of that kind of lenses, but: what about the extra long range zoom, I mainly mean, the 16-300 f/3,5-6,3 Tamron, or the 18-300 f/3,5-6,3 Sigma?
Thomas
Click to expand...

This actually is one of the best advices here because it shed light on a type of lenses we're forgetting, the cheaper super zooms... I've used this lens for photography on a 16mp camera and it did the job extremely well from very wide landscapes to wildlife-telephoto at 300mm, in one turn... with very good IS, it's softer than many lenses yes, but it simply gets sh?* done, and the sharpness difference is not as big as you might think as 2 megapixels even compared to the highest end lenses...

The C100 mk II has a cool feature that compensates (with gain) the exposure change in real-time when zooming in, so an 18-135mm behaves identically to a constant aperture in real world shooting, it looks very neat. However I wonder if it works with only Canon lenses... anybody have information about it and whether it exists on the first generations?

Here's a sharpness comparison between the 24-105mm vs. the 18-135mm, again this is at 18mp stills, and is the 24-105 L better/sharper? Yes, definitely at certain focal lengths (especially the 24mm end) but again the difference is not as big as you might think at 2 megapixels, if at all noticeable...

I guess it solely depends on your own audience threshold of acceptable quality..
 
I would hope that the 24-105 would be sharper than the 18-135, it costs considerably more. That said, I don't like the 24-105 on the C100, the focal length isn't wide enough to shoot handheld very well. I also just don't like the lens on the 5D MKIII, especially for stills but even for video, it is very "meh" Sharpness isn't everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top