C100: c100 best zoom lens Combination

Hey folks. I'm going to purchase the Canon C100 mk II soon. I could use some advice on lenses. I'm moving from the Panasonic AF100. I do a lot of interviews. I do corporates, event video (I also have a 22x zoom camera), reality TV, and walk around university tours with an on camera host. I've been getting a lot of local freelance work from non-local production companies. So I'd like to brand myself better for freelance for wider area work. So listing lenses comes with that territory. So I have to consider that brands like Tamron & Tokina don't sound as good on the list. Also-- I know that renting lenses to see how I like them is a good idea. But I want to finance at lease one expensive lens with the camera, so I can't do that after the purchase. Long post, so thanks in advance!

If you care to see what kind of work I do, you can here-- http://btmediapro.com/gallery/

--

My current lenses that can move with me are:

Tamron 17 - 50mm F2.8 constant
The FOV with this on the AF100 is equivalent to about 24 - 70mm on the Canon. So it'll be a bit wider than I'm used to. That can be good and bad. Good to have the wide side that I haven't had before, bad that it makes it not as good of an all purpose walk around lens.

Nikon 50mm 1.4
Haven't even used this much since having the Tamron. Zooms with constant aperture are so much more convenient.

--

Below are what I think my needs are to add with new lenses, possibly listed as highest importance first--

Long zoom, constant 2.8 aperture
Obviously, this is the 70 - 200mm lens area. The Canons are pretty expensive. There's the cheaper Canon 70 - 200mm F2.8 at $1,450. Is it much of a disadvantage vs. the newer version that is about $2,100? Then there is the Canon 70 - 200mm F4 one for a much easier $700. How's that one stop less light do on the C100's sensor?

In this category, I'm mostly looking at the Tamron 70 - 200mm 2.8 for $770. It has good reviews, and I stand by Tamron's quality. Which way does the focus turn? The Nikon versions that I've used are not intuitive to me. So I'd like to move to Canon's direction as I add lenses. But it's not a deal breaker if it is still the Nikon direction.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

--

Wide angle lens
I love the wide angle look. That just starts to have slight distortion on the side, but just barely. I've never had it before, but it seems like it has so many practical uses. Makes me think about science topic interviews that still maintain a shallow depth of field. What kind of aperture do you need on say 11 - 16mm to still achieve a somewhat shallow DOF, 2.8?

The obvious one here is the Tokina 11 - 16mm at $500. Then also the Tokina 12 - 28mm 4.0 constant for $440. How does that F4 hold up so wide with this sensor?

--

A better walk around wide to tele lens w/ a constant aperture vs. my Tamron 17 - 50mm F2.8
I'm not sure if I really need this or not. The 17 - 50mm might still do well, it just won't be as tele as I'm used to being able to get in one lens. There's a Tamron 28 - 75mm F2.8 constant, but that's not all that wide.

Does constant F4 hold up well with this sensor to still achieve good DOF? The Canon 24 - 70mm F4 at $1,000 & Canon 24 - 105mm F4 at $1,150 cost more than I would want to pay for an F4 lens, but that's thinking with my AF100's sensor. If it holds up well here, then the price on the 24 - 105 doesn't sound too bad if I purchase this instead of a 70 - 200mm lens.

--

Far away event work, like filming a college commencement from the back balcony (2 cameras)
The 70 - 200mm covers as far as I had used a 175mm lens on my AF100. But if I didn't get the 70 - 200mm, then there are some cheap lenses that go to (or close to) 300mm. Cheap enough to sound like a good purchase if I need it for these not too exciting, but good paying type of jobs.
 
Here's the lenses I am using with the C100 Mark II:

Run and gun: 24-105 F4
Low light: Sigma 18-35
Wide: Tokina 11-16
Interview: Canon 50 1.4
Telephoto: Canon 70-200 f4 IS
Lens for face detection if it's really useful / good: the new EF-S 24mm pancake

For events, I carry a small shoulder bag that can fit gear and a couple lenses. The 24-105 will live on it 80% of the time, and I would switch to the 18-35 for low light. Once you practice switching lenses you can do it quite fast - especially if you have a bag where you can keep the lenses without caps.
 
Hearnia said:
Here's the lenses I am using with the C100 Mark II:

Run and gun: 24-105 F4
Low light: Sigma 18-35
Wide: Tokina 11-16
Interview: Canon 50 1.4
Telephoto: Canon 70-200 f4 IS
Lens for face detection if it's really useful / good: the new EF-S 24mm pancake

For events, I carry a small shoulder bag that can fit gear and a couple lenses. The 24-105 will live on it 80% of the time, and I would switch to the 18-35 for low light. Once you practice switching lenses you can do it quite fast - especially if you have a bag where you can keep the lenses without caps.
Click to expand...


Great info! Thank you. Sounds like I'd do well with the 24 - 105 F4, and skip on a 70 - 200 F2.8 for now. So you already have the Mark II, nice! Is there a store already shipping?

Do you happen to have any examples of your work with the 24 - 105? What's the name of the shoulder bag that you're using?

I'm only about 7.5 hours north of you in Macon, GA. Get in touch if you ever need another shooter.

https://vimeo.com/btmediapro

Edit: I just stumbled upon the Sigma 24 - 105 F4. From the reviews, sounds like people like it more than the Canon. And it's a bit cheaper at $900. Has anyone used it?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html
 
Last edited:
Brandon, I own a C100 Mk I with the Continuous AF upgrade and I've found that the non-canon lenses that I've used with it don't play nice with the Continuous AF or Push Auto features. I use these features quite a bit so I've learned that for my needs I'm best off sticking with Canon lenses because all the EF and EF-S lenses will work with these features. I have not used the Sigma 24-105 but if you do plan to take advantage of these two features then you may want to do some research on how well the lens works with them. If you don't think you'll ever use these features then you won't need to worry about that issue. Others may have had different experiences with non-canon lenses and the C100's AF features, but that's just what I've found in my own experience.

I do own the Canon 24-105 F/4 and it works very well with both AF features which can be quite helpful during live events and run and gun situations. Just to throw out a couple more lens combinations, many people have had great success with the C100 using the Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 IS and then pairing that with the Canon 70-200mm. I'm thinking of trading in my 24-105 for the 17-55 because it's a stop faster and can go quite a bit wider. I shoot in low light quite a bit and I also have more of a need for the wide end so it seems like a lens that will suit me well. However, if what you're doing requires that you keep a single lens on the camera for long periods of time and also requires the extra reach of the 24-105 then that may be a better choice for you.
 
Sorry I should have worded that differently - those are the lenses I'm planning to use with the Mark II. I don't have the 24-105 yet because it wasn't useful with the BMCC EF or a 7D, which were my previous cameras. I agree with silverman and would use the canon version of the 24-105. Sigma did update the firmware of the 18-35 to work with the dual pixel AF however.

Also you can get the canon 24-105 grey market for around $650 on eBay.

This is the shoulder bag I use, but it looks like it's been discontinued. Lowepro probably has some kind of replacement model: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PK14VC/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
the canon 18-135 stm lens is worth a look for event type work - much cheaper, lighter and wider than the 24-105, works silently and more efficiently with the dual Af and can be used at f5.6 throughout the zoom - the 24-105 gets darker as you zoom in, it is not a constant f4
the canon 70-200 2.8 mk2 is a thing of beauty, absolutely worth the money over the mk1, expensive though, if its too pricey - would go for the 70-200 f4, much smaller and agile to work with - f4 not really an issue, the low light ability of the c100 is a big step up from the af101, made the same move couple of years ago now

whoops sorry should have read the whole thread, seems this has all been discussed already.......
 
Last edited:
Lots of good info, ade4all, Hearnia, & mdsilverman. Thanks! I did not realize that the 24-105 wasn't constant aperture.

Ade-- if I decided to go with the mk I 70-200 F2.8, would I be missing out on much? As far as the F4 goes, since you're a former AF100 shooter, as well..... Does F4 on the C100 more or less correspond to what I'm used to getting at F2.8 on the AF100? I've been making a measured assumption that that was the case, so it'd be good to hear if so.

Hearnia-- ok, cool, thanks for clearing that up. I'll probably take a look and see if there's a successor for that bag when I feel like I need it down the line. Thanks for the link!

mdsilverman-- that's good info to keep in mind about the autofocus. I don't think I'd use anything continuous, but that one touch to get it set and then leave it-- that would be helpful. I don't think I'm going to consider the Canon 17-55 F2.8 since I already have a Tamron (Nikon mount) 17-50mm F2.8. It would just be a waste of money, even though having the electronics on board would be nice. Thanks!

So hopefully my financing gets approved through Canon tomorrow. I'm buying through Texas Media Systems. I plan to write another post on how great they've been to work with. But yeah, I'm still up in the air on what lens to buy if I add it onto the lease.... decisions. lol.
 
Ok, I think I've made my decisions.



My current lenses that I will be able to use are:

Tamron 17 - 50mm F2.8 (constant) in Nikon mount
Nikon 50mm F1.4



And then buying:

Tokina 11 - 16mm F2.8 ($500)
Tamron - 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF ($770)


Any last minute suggestions based on that? Thanks!
 
BrandonT said:
I did not realize that the 24-105 wasn't constant aperture.
Click to expand...

The Canon 24-105mm f4L IS has a constant f4 aperture. It's transmission value, however, is around T5.1.

T-stops are more commonly used on cinema glass, since they are a better indication of actual light throughput, taking all the glass in the lens into account. As light passes through the lens, some of it is absorbed/lost. Thus a f4 turns into a T5.
 
the 24-105 may have a constant aperture but it definitely loses light as you zoom in, so whether its f4 or t5.1 on the wide end you need to be aware that your image will darken as you zoom in - not ideal for run n gun

the tamron 70-200 2.8 is a solid choice, just be aware that if you want to take advantage of the dual pixel af it works much better on Canon lenses. I.S. is also handy on a telephoto lens. I was more talking about f4 not being a problem in low light for the c100 compared with the af101
 
ade4all said:
the tamron 70-200 2.8 is a solid choice, just be aware that if you want to take advantage of the dual pixel af it works much better on Canon lenses. I.S. is also handy on a telephoto lens.
Click to expand...

Definitely a nice lens! I bought a used Canon 70-200 f4 IS for $800 from a guy in town here on G_list..... that's half the price of the Tamron, and you don't need to worry about the dual pixel AF etc. working. However the 1.3 crop factor made the 70-200 very challenging to use indoors for my purposes, and using it outside I doubt the extra stop is going to be an advantage..... plus the Canon weighs a lot less..... a consideration for for running and gunning. I don't think you can find much fault with the Canon 70-200 f4 IS in fact, many feel it's sharper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8.

The Tamron is a great lens and is $400 or $500 cheaper than the Canon f2.8.
 
Michael Thames said:
Definitely a nice lens! I bought a used Canon 70-200 f4 IS for $800 from a guy in town here on G_list..... that's half the price of the Tamron, and you don't need to worry about the dual pixel AF etc. working. However the 1.3 crop factor made the 70-200 very challenging to use indoors for my purposes, and using it outside I doubt the extra stop is going to be an advantage..... plus the Canon weighs a lot less..... a consideration for for running and gunning. I don't think you can find much fault with the Canon 70-200 f4 IS in fact, many feel it's sharper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8.

The Tamron is a great lens and is $400 or $500 cheaper than the Canon f2.8.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was talking about the other Tamron 70-200mm F2.8. The one I'm talking about does NOT have vibration compensation, is macro, and costs $769. The version you're talking about does have vibration compensation and costs $1,500. I definitely agree that I wouldn't pay for the more expensive Tamron versus the Canon. Not having stabilization, as ade pointed out (thank you), is something to consider. But I really don't want to pay more than $1,000 for a single lens for the time being.

This is the less expensive version.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

So if I went Canon for that lens, it would be the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM. That doesn't have stabilization, either. And it costs about $700.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_USM.html
 
BrandonT said:
Actually, I was talking about the other Tamron 70-200mm F2.8. The one I'm talking about does NOT have vibration compensation, is macro, and costs $769. The version you're talking about does have vibration compensation and costs $1,500. I definitely agree that I wouldn't pay for the more expensive Tamron versus the Canon. Not having stabilization, as ade pointed out (thank you), is something to consider. But I really don't want to pay more than $1,000 for a single lens for the time being.

This is the less expensive version.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

So if I went Canon for that lens, it would be the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM. That doesn't have stabilization, either. And it costs about $700.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-USA/Canon_2578A002_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_USM.html
Click to expand...

Actually we can thank the GH4 mania for guys unloading Thierry Canon lenses at dirt cheap prices. Like I said " only fools rush in". Ha ha!
 
Michael Thames said:
Actually we can thank the GH4 mania for guys unloading Thierry Canon lenses at dirt cheap prices. Like I said " only fools rush in". Ha ha!
Click to expand...

Haha. Yeah, I'm glad of the route that I ended up taking. Canon is who made all of the large sensor (affordable) video camera stuff start happening, but I'm glad I went with Panasonic in the beginning. But definitely glad to be moving to Canon's line now. I do just wish that I had gotten these two lenses in EF mount instead of Nikon mount, but it's not a huge deal. lol.

In looking at all of the C100 Mark II stuff and lenses, I was considering also offloading my GH2 (I'm definitely selling the AF100). And then buying like a used 7D to use as a B-cam. But after thinking more on it, I'm just going to stick with the GH2. I just have to decide which m4/3 lenses to keep, and which to sell along with the AF100.
 
I looked at your samples and recognize the AF100 look having owned one before migrating to the C100. I do a lot of talking heads, perhaps it's 25% of my work.

I would say that the combo of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and the C100 is gorgeous, clients love it. I'd call it a popular look meaning when the client or director sees it on my DP7 they say, "Yep that's it!" However, you can't be in a cramped room.

Also, you seem overly concerned with "constant". To me it doesn't matter as much because I just quickly adjust stop or ISO, I try no to shoot max wide open due to softness. The main benefit of moving up from the AF is that with the C100 you can easily scroll in your ISO to take care of stop and also manipulate the DoF.

I have the Tokina 11-16, it's my go-to lens for building establishing shots and landscapes but otherwise it's kind of useless for interiors. Also have the Canon 24-105 f4, it's my workhorse for b-roll, I keep the 11-16 in a pouch on my belt, so with the two I can handle b-roll all day. The 70-200 is too unwieldy for b-roll but have used it when doing 2 camera b-roll coverage although the better of the cameramen should be on the longer lens.

If I were you I would not buy any more glass until you get used to the C100 for a few weeks, especially on b-roll. Like the AF you will need to be changing lenses a lot.

Lastly, lens choices have been discussed ad naseum here for over a year so if you have the time, say on New Years day and start from the first post, take notes. But I can not imagine doing interviews without the 70-200.
 
nedcam said:
I looked at your samples and recognize the AF100 look having owned one before migrating to the C100. I do a lot of talking heads, perhaps it's 25% of my work.

I would say that the combo of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and the C100 is gorgeous, clients love it. I'd call it a popular look meaning when the client or director sees it on my DP7 they say, "Yep that's it!" However, you can't be in a cramped room.

Also, you seem overly concerned with "constant". To me it doesn't matter as much because I just quickly adjust stop or ISO, I try no to shoot max wide open due to softness. The main benefit of moving up from the AF is that with the C100 you can easily scroll in your ISO to take care of stop and also manipulate the DoF.

I have the Tokina 11-16, it's my go-to lens for building establishing shots and landscapes but otherwise it's kind of useless for interiors. Also have the Canon 24-105 f4, it's my workhorse for b-roll, I keep the 11-16 in a pouch on my belt, so with the two I can handle b-roll all day. The 70-200 is too unwieldy for b-roll but have used it when doing 2 camera b-roll coverage although the better of the cameramen should be on the longer lens.

If I were you I would not buy any more glass until you get used to the C100 for a few weeks, especially on b-roll. Like the AF you will need to be changing lenses a lot.

Lastly, lens choices have been discussed ad naseum here for over a year so if you have the time, say on New Years day and start from the first post, take notes. But I can not imagine doing interviews without the 70-200.
Click to expand...

Thanks, ned! Looking at my samples to help with advice was really nice of you. Good to know about being able to change ISO on the fly-- didn't even consider that that would be a possibility. And really helpful to know about the "yep that's it" factor.

I am considering seeing how my 17 - 50mm lens range is on it. And just leasing the camera, and buying any lenses in cash later. That'll make the payments on the lease look better, and I'll pay it off sooner sticking with a payment larger than my minimum each month.

Yeah, I've read every post in this thread at least twice. That's why I tried to keep it to the one long post, but it's gone on a little more from there. Camera purchase is going through tomorrow, and being shipped out Friday! :)
 
Hearnia said:
This is the shoulder bag I use, but it looks like it's been discontinued. Lowepro probably has some kind of replacement model: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PK14VC/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Click to expand...

I found what looks to be the comparable version that is currently being sold, if anyone was interested. Pretty good at $36. You'll have to do an image search to see inside of the bag.

http://www.amazon.com/Lowepro-Messenger-Shoulder-Compartment-LP36415/dp/B0077B3E5S/ref=pd_ybh_2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top