C100: C100 Mk2 - STM Lenses

X

xocomil

Well-known member
I'm thinking about upgrading to the c100 Mk2.

Much of the work I do is run and gun, working on my own (news and docs). The AF / face detection on the Mk2 looks very attractive, but appears only to work with STM lenses (of which I have none).

Two interesting ones are:

18-135mm EF-S

24-105 EF

Same variable aperture, similar price. One's EF, the other EF-S. But 18-135 has more useable range (particularly of interest for me on the wide end, as my current go-to lens is the 17-55 2.8).

Any words of advice on optics, feel of lenses, etc, to help me decide?

Also, the new 100-400 USM II looks very interesting. I currently have the cheapy 70-300, and recently used the 70-200 2.8 for a week on my C100. The 70-200 was a huge step up optically, and useability wise.

Many thanks!
 
I own and use the 18-135 STM IS and I have used the 24-105 F4 quite a bit over the past few years, one of my clients has one and we use it with their 5D MKIII sometimes. For my style, the 24-105 is not nearly wide enough, especially for any kind of handheld walking shots. The focus on the 24-15 is noisy and rough in comparison, the focus on the 18-135 is smooth and quick. The 24-105 is built better, but it costs a lot more. I tend to take good care of my gear so the lesser build quality of the 18-135 is moot point for me but if you beat up your gear, the 24-105 is more rugged. IMHO, the 18-135 is a perfect general purpose/starter lens for the C100. I shoot interviews with my Nikon primes and I have a a Canon 28mm 1.8 when I need something fast that is average length so the 18-135 is my run and gun lens and it works well. I wish it was built better and I wish is was F4 constant but other than that, it's a sweet little lens.
 
Last edited:
Hearnia said:
I was almost on board with it just for the face detection until I compared center sharpness: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Click to expand...

Your link points to the non-STM 24-105. On a 1Ds. Since we're talking 18-135 STM vs 24-105 STM here's a more accurate comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...1&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. To my money they exhibit pretty much identical IQ centre and middle, with the 18-135 actually sharper on the edges. The 24-105 STM falls to pieces completely once we zoom in. At least fully open. It's a lens I'd avoid at all costs.

Given the 18-135 has a better range, sharper IQ, and is cheaper it's a no-brainer.

I find face detect on the 18-135 great for a scene with limited movement. Being able to live switch targets for scenes with multiple subjects is great too. I've had trouble relying on it when zooming and/or with a subject walking towards the camera, but to it's credit it didn't do any worse a job than my manual attempts to rack focus!
 
puredrifting said:
I own and use the 18-135 STM IS and I have used the 24-105 F4 quite a bit over the past few years, one of my clients has one and we use it with their 5D MKIII sometimes. For my style, the 24-15 is not nearly wide enough, especially for any kind of handheld walking shots. The focus on the 24-15 is noisy and rough in comparison, the focus on the 18-135 is smooth and quick. The 24-105 is built better, but it costs a lot more. I tend to take good care of my gear so the lesser build quality of the 18-135 is moot point for me but if you beat up your gear, the 24-105 is more rugged. IMHO, the 18-135 is a perfect general purpose/starter lens for the C100. I shoot interviews with my Nikon primes and I have a a Canon 28mm 1.8 when I need something fast that is average length so the 18-135 is my run and gun lens and it works well. I wish it was built better and I wish is was F4 constant but other than that, it's a sweet little lens.
Click to expand...

I have the 18-135 and the c100ii. For the life of me I can't get the face detect to work. Always greyed out in the menu system. Am I missing something?

TY!
 
pmcdonald said:
Your link points to the non-STM 24-105. On a 1Ds. Since we're talking 18-135 STM vs 24-105 STM here's a more accurate comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...1&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. To my money they exhibit pretty much identical IQ centre and middle, with the 18-135 actually sharper on the edges. The 24-105 STM falls to pieces completely once we zoom in. At least fully open. It's a lens I'd avoid at all costs.
Click to expand...
It says STM on my screen. Maybe the link didn't paste properly. I think I'm just biased against kit lenses from my early DSLR days. It feels like giving up!

I have a feeling Canon will let us do a paid upgrade for some of the C300 MII autofocus features eventually.
 
tom1 said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

This website is strange , I do not know what to think , just look for 24-105 f4 & 17-55 f2.8 . 24-105 f4 smash 17-55 in all aperture , it does not matter f2.8 or 5.6 . I do not believe in this website , maybe they got bad copy of 17-55 ? Many people says 17-55 is super sharp ,straight from f2.8 , in this compare even f5.6 is soft .
Click to expand...

Absolutely take the digital picture comparison tool with a grain of salt. There are reports of a number of comparisons that are a bit off. It is a good reference though, and the tester does his best to ensure accurate results. I like it because it puts MTF stats to actual pictures.

If pixel level IQ is paramount my advice would be to cross reference the results with as many other testing sites as possible. My personal favourite is Photozone: http://photozone.de/reviews. You can see from their 24-105 and 17-55 reviews that the 17-55 is a shade sharper across the range, which I'd be more inclined to believe than the DP comparison.
 
One thing that you have to consider is that almost all of the lens test and review sites are testing the lenses for still photos, not video. If you are shooting 4k, that puts you much more in the resolution range of still images but for those of us only shooting 1080, realize that almost any still camera lens far outresolves 1080 video. A crappy or cheap lens may not look that great or have good color rendition or contrast and may have defects like chromatic aberrations that do show up on video, but as far as resolution, even the cheapest lenses in Canon's line have more than enough for outstanding 1080 resolution. Sure, there also is the edge to edge sharpness versus center sharpness to consider but that is less apparent in video applications than in still usage. Every lens in Canons line should look "sharp" when shooting 1080 72dpi RGB video, but could fall apart with 4k if it's not a very sharp lens. Something to keep in mind as you buy lenses and probably will own a 4k camera eventually. It will be interesting to see how good some of the popular lenses like the 24-105 and 18=135 STM IS resolve on the C300 MKII or whatever other 4k camera you end up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top