C100: C100 + Canon 24-105 F/4

Rayden

Rayden

Well-known member
I shoot about 20 weddings a year, and I mainly shoot with primes. Recently I borrowed a 24-105 f4 to fit on my c100 for a wedding. I knew that the day would be fast paced, and I hate having to constantly switch primes during the day. Usually when I need to do a lens swap, it comes at the worst time, and there's the delay of switching the camera off, and back on, then waiting for the camera to allow me to hit the record button. Now don't get me wrong, it's not that long of a wait, but it does get old. Any who, I fell in love with the ability to have a range of 24-105 without having to switch as often. I even had the ability to shoot macro for a ring shot, and I was able to really notice the IS while shooting on my monopod. Now, I know that most primes are generally sharper than zooms, and also faster. Since I was shooting during the day, speed was not an issue. I was even able to crank the ISO up a bit during the reception and get some usable shots with the 24-105.

The reason for this post is to really get some feedback from others who use this lens on the c100 often. I would really like to purchase this lens to add to my collection, but I have one concern. Sharpness. I have heard, and read from many that this lens is "soft", and just a "kit lens". Photogs seem to think the same and most of the photographers I know have sold theirs for primes. Compared to my DSLR, anything that i've put on my c100 looks great. Unfortunately, I did not have it long enough to do any side by side test against my primes on the c100. I have also considered the 24-70 2.8, but for the price the 24-105 (used) is a steal. Any feedback or footage on the c100 with this lens will be greatly appreciated.

BTW the other glass that I normally carry during a run and gun shoot are:
10-20
35 1.4
50 1.4
85 1.4
70-200

Thanks in advance.:)
 
The resolving power of the 24-105 is much higher than the sensor of the C100. It has other problems like distortion and a subjective sense that it has less contrast/saturation. It also has an incredibly annoying drop in light transmission when zooming at anything other than wide open. The 24-70 has the same problem, though. Honestly, like every other thread on this forum, the conclusion is going to be that the 24-105 with the C100 is a no brainer.
 
I believe you are looking at the issue the wrong way. Instead, frame it thusly: "Does sharper resolution override missing the shot?" That's how I see it.

I do not shoot weddings, however, much of my work is very, very fast moving documentary so when I transitioned from the AF100 to the C100 I sold my 3 matching Zeiss primes. They were getting beat up with pit-stop style changes and seemed to stay in the lens case unless a slow moving job called for them. I could see you keeping the primes for the pre-ceremony/party scenes, perhaps talking heads, but once you need to move fast having the 24-105 is the way to go and perhaps keep something wider in a lens pouch on your belt. It has become my default lens when I enter a situation I don't know what is going to happen. It is not parfocal and there is a transmission loss on its max-tele end.

Every lens is less sharp when wide open and the beauty of the C100 is you can quickly up the ISO to get off of f4. Also, always have the shutter on otherwise motion blur will make the image soft, which is not due to the lens. Unless you are doing the wedding of a fellow videographer or editor I doubt, in the documentary type shots, that the viewer will notice the difference between a prime and zoom. They are fixated on faces, the content, the vibe of your editing. As to buying used, I would only do that if it was a local purchase and I could put it through its paces, it may have been dropped, rained on, etc.

In sum, if you need to keep up with reality, it is more important to "Get the shot" then having an almost imperceivable increase in resolution, especially if the client base you have can't tell the difference. TV commercials, projects to be projected, etc., that's another story, but for doc shooting I think we all need it. It's a horrible feeling when you know you didn't get that important shot...

Regards,

Ned
 
I am just reading some reviews and Sigma 24-105 is a clear winner over Canon. If I will get C100 I will definitely chose Sigma. Anyone have got it? I am wondering how dual pixel AF works with it.
 
Last edited:
nedcam said:
"Does sharper resolution override missing the shot?" That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

100% agree with that. I've rented the 24-105 many times simply because the range is what I needed (Figure Skating mostly).

I shoot weddings as well, as you said (and have heard from others), it is soft, and certainly not as sharp as primes or others.
For weddings I go for the 24-70 f2.8 - gives a sharper image, shallower depth of field, and 95% of the time, you can take the few steps closer to make up for the 35mm you lose vs the 105.
 
Regarding sharpness, I decided to do a quick test. It is by far the worst camera test I've ever done, but I didn't feel like spending a lot of time. I just intended to show that even though the Canon 24mm-105mm is soft, it still out resolves a 1080p sensor. I shot this on Canon 1DC and then blew up the 4k image to 120% and 200% and output to 1080p. Even though it is obviously soft at 200%, you can see more detail than you can at 120%.

http://youtu.be/CYl6EeVlEkY

*Updated with a much better test below.
 
Last edited:
I used to be in same situation as you. I use primes only and Ive got full set of primes. from 14, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 28-300. its all L, and all 1.2 , 1.4 lenses

after a accident Ive lost 85.100,28-300

and recently I just discovered that~~~

fuk primes, 24-105 is the best.

yeah, I mean events, like weddings. again, fuk primes.


again, its for low budgets only. for cinematic quality.... I still can achieve 95% compare to exclusively using primes.


my 2 cents, bite me
 
That last test I posted was so useless, I decided to do another one. This time, I also compared a number of other lenses at different apertures and different magnifications. My conclusions is that if you are shooting at 1080p on an S35 sensor, the lens doesn't matter. If you are shooting for full resolution, primes start to make sense.

It does leave me wondering about how the GH4 guys are fairing at 4K and their 2.3x crop vs full frame. They are definitely going to be noticing the limits of their lenses.
http://youtu.be/PQE_je-seR8
 
alohype said:
I am wondering how dual pixel AF works with it.
Click to expand...

Unless it's different from other Sigma lenses tested recently, DPAF will only work when the Sigma is at it's widest aperture. Sigma Japan aren't interested in sorting it out, stating to me that they can't guarantee compatibility with the C Series. See the recent thread on macro lenses for more info.

Ben.
 
Rayden said:
and there's the delay of switching the camera off, and back on, then waiting for the camera to allow me to hit the record button.
Click to expand...

It's been discussed a few times, but many of us don't switch off for lens changes on the C100 - I never have and, in over a year of pretty heavy use, I have never experienced any issues.

24-105 is a donkey - but an incredibly useful and workmanlike one. It's my most used lens.

Ben.
 
Here's another test of the 24-105 at its weakest compared to other 24mm lenses. This time I tested the corners.
http://youtu.be/BJujjeFzjRU

If you really want the sharpest lens at 4K, you are going to need the 24 TSE. Otherwise, it is really hard to tell the difference between any of these lenses at 1080P.
 
cpreston said:
That last test I posted was so useless, I decided to do another one. This time, I also compared a number of other lenses at different apertures and different magnifications. My conclusions is that if you are shooting at 1080p on an S35 sensor, the lens doesn't matter. If you are shooting for full resolution, primes start to make sense.

It does leave me wondering about how the GH4 guys are fairing at 4K and their 2.3x crop vs full frame. They are definitely going to be noticing the limits of their lenses.
http://youtu.be/PQE_je-seR8
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for taking the time to post this test. It appears to me that there is no significant difference in sharpness in these test. I will try to get my hands on it again to do some more test.

Also Thanks to everyone else who chimed in on the matter. I still think I may pick one up. Found a couple used for just around 500 usd.
 
alohype said:
I am just reading some reviews and Sigma 24-105 is a clear winner over Canon. If I will get C100 I will definitely chose Sigma. Anyone have got it? I am wondering how dual pixel AF works with it.
Click to expand...

I looked at this lens. Not a fan of the tiny focus ring. The focus ring is also behind the zoom ring which is also a turnoff for me.
 
Rayden said:
Thank you so much for taking the time to post this test. It appears to me that there is no significant difference in sharpness in these test. I will try to get my hands on it again to do some more test.

Also Thanks to everyone else who chimed in on the matter. I still think I may pick one up. Found a couple used for just around 500 usd.
Click to expand...

I'll sell you mine for $450 :)
 
i use the canon 24-105 most of the time unless i need to go wider. optically I'm ok with the canon but what i don't like is...

1) as you zoom in it drops about 1.3-1.5 stops of light
2) its very hard to get a smooth zoom, almost impossible.

the tests I've seen show the new sigma's optical quality equal to the canon.

i also want to see if the sigma's IS is as good as canons.

i am waiting for my local camera store to get in the sigma. i also have the sigma 18-35 1.8 and the sigma 8-16mm. zooming is super smooth on both of them. the 18-35mm is very "dampened" so you can zoom and make it looks like its a servo zoom. can't do that with the canon.

if...the sigma "does not loose light" when zooming in & its as "dampened" as my other sigmas i will dump my canon and go sigma. i own lots of high end canon glass but i will tell you that Sigma is coming out with stuff that is very very impressive. fact is their lenses are still priced pretty low IMO.

i strongly suggest you take a good look at the sigma & canon and don't purchase blindly.



david
 
david_p said:
if...the sigma "does not loose light" when zooming in & its as "dampened" as my other sigmas i will dump my canon and go sigma. i own lots of high end canon glass but i will tell you that Sigma is coming out with stuff that is very very impressive. fact is their lenses are still priced pretty low IMO.
Click to expand...
It does not lose light, but is also not parfocal, unlike the Canon. Someone made a very good comparison video that addresses pretty much everything you want to know. Here it is: http://vimeo.com/88093705
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top