C300: Lens advice for c300
- Thread starter travelman
- Start date
indiawilds
Veteran
I have been using the C300 with all the lenses I have. The 24-105 gets preference over the 24-70 f2.8 L USM lens due to the IS (Image stabilisation) in the 24-105. Here is a short with C300 and 24-105 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRQjcEzoM0Q
The 17-55 is not weather sealed and the incredibly dusty environments that I work, I will not use it.
The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is used many times often with the 2x TC. For low light work, I use the 400mm IS USM lens at 2.8 and have even used it at 20000 ISO. However, one gets lot of grains at that ISO. The 16-35 f2.8 L II USMis a great lens.
The 17-55 is not weather sealed and the incredibly dusty environments that I work, I will not use it.
The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is used many times often with the 2x TC. For low light work, I use the 400mm IS USM lens at 2.8 and have even used it at 20000 ISO. However, one gets lot of grains at that ISO. The 16-35 f2.8 L II USMis a great lens.
MattDavis
Well-known member
I concur with Mr Turner regarding the usefulness of the 24-105.
I was using the Canon 35-105 3.5 FD lens with my FS100 as the 'ideal' interview lens but being a little senescent, lacking in contrast and most importantly, no IS.
The 24-105 has taken over. Perfect interview and candid lens with the C100 and C300. Add the Tokina 11-16 and you're set for most stuff. I still love the Canon 17-55 2.8, the Sigma 50 1.4 has proven to be better wide open (where it counts) over the Canon equivalent, and yes - the 70-2000 f4 IS is something that you can put in a vest pocket and use handheld (just) whereas the 2.8 IS is just so darned big. Other point (recently confirmed here) being that you don't need rails for the 70-200.
This is from the viewpoint of needing a camera setup that can function discretely in handheld mode; YMMV.
I was using the Canon 35-105 3.5 FD lens with my FS100 as the 'ideal' interview lens but being a little senescent, lacking in contrast and most importantly, no IS.
The 24-105 has taken over. Perfect interview and candid lens with the C100 and C300. Add the Tokina 11-16 and you're set for most stuff. I still love the Canon 17-55 2.8, the Sigma 50 1.4 has proven to be better wide open (where it counts) over the Canon equivalent, and yes - the 70-2000 f4 IS is something that you can put in a vest pocket and use handheld (just) whereas the 2.8 IS is just so darned big. Other point (recently confirmed here) being that you don't need rails for the 70-200.
This is from the viewpoint of needing a camera setup that can function discretely in handheld mode; YMMV.
MattDavis
Well-known member
It comes down to two factors: reach and DoF.
Reach:
the 17-55 is a lens I'd prefer not do do without. It's the lens I bought first, not quite trusting my gut instinct about the 24-105. However, I've been continually frustrated over the last 18 months (first with the FS100, now with the C100) that I'm constantly at the 50 range in most interview setups, and need a little (a lot) more reach into the face during the interview. That point where the interviewee reaches within and pulls out key learning points. At that point, 55mm doesn't do it unless I'm in the interviewee's face. With the longer reach of the 24-105, I can push into the intensity of the moment.
Again, when walking around a crowd of people that I'm paid to observe and record their interactions and 'aha' moments as they work together, 55mm doesn't do it. Finding a 70-200 and attaching it takes too long. 105mm, especially now its Image Stabilised so I can do it with a monopod or (egad) hand held, gets us - the observers - into their little private space. Yet, at a moments notice, I can pull back to 24mm (your general purpose 35mm at FF) and put the huddle into their context amongst their friends. It's not super wide, which will establish everyone in their environment, but at a 35mm equivalent, 24mm will paint a picture. Hence I have a Tokina in the pocket just in case...
F4 - it's a safe DoF to work at. 2.8 is hairy, 1.4 is scary. Not every shot requires 'wafer thin' DoF, and if you're communing with an interviewee, it's nice to have them stand on a spot with a chair back in front of them, working on the basis that they 'STAY THERE' so you can concentrate on keeping eye contact. F4, f5.6 - it's cool. It's about where we were with f2 to f2.8 with B4 2/3" lenses. It's enough.
And lest we forget... IS. We can do the 'camcorder' trick and follow people hand held without making the audience reach for their sick bags. IS is not about tripod replacement - it's about getting what you can where you can. Canon's IS is nothing like the amazing 'ChickenCam' - http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/09/chicken-powered-steadicam-proves-poultry-has-a-future-in-hollywo/ (don't try this at home folks) and that is replicated somewhat in Sony's redonkulous NX30:
http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/nxcamcorders/hxr-nx30e/overview
We're not looking for that. The IS on the 24-105, plus the 'safe' DoF, means we can get a 'camcorderish' mode of action, made even more usable by Canon's proposed 'continuous AF' update later on. Meanwhile, I can do Establish, Intro, Close Up and Ultra Close Up on one lens during the interview, and even choose to film an IV hand held in walk-about mode with just one lens. Couldn't do that with the 17-55 - not really. Will keep both, AND the 11-16 AND the 35mm 1.4 AND the 50mm 1.4s (Sigma and Nikkor) AND the 135 f2, AND... I'm a lens slut.
Reach:
the 17-55 is a lens I'd prefer not do do without. It's the lens I bought first, not quite trusting my gut instinct about the 24-105. However, I've been continually frustrated over the last 18 months (first with the FS100, now with the C100) that I'm constantly at the 50 range in most interview setups, and need a little (a lot) more reach into the face during the interview. That point where the interviewee reaches within and pulls out key learning points. At that point, 55mm doesn't do it unless I'm in the interviewee's face. With the longer reach of the 24-105, I can push into the intensity of the moment.
Again, when walking around a crowd of people that I'm paid to observe and record their interactions and 'aha' moments as they work together, 55mm doesn't do it. Finding a 70-200 and attaching it takes too long. 105mm, especially now its Image Stabilised so I can do it with a monopod or (egad) hand held, gets us - the observers - into their little private space. Yet, at a moments notice, I can pull back to 24mm (your general purpose 35mm at FF) and put the huddle into their context amongst their friends. It's not super wide, which will establish everyone in their environment, but at a 35mm equivalent, 24mm will paint a picture. Hence I have a Tokina in the pocket just in case...
F4 - it's a safe DoF to work at. 2.8 is hairy, 1.4 is scary. Not every shot requires 'wafer thin' DoF, and if you're communing with an interviewee, it's nice to have them stand on a spot with a chair back in front of them, working on the basis that they 'STAY THERE' so you can concentrate on keeping eye contact. F4, f5.6 - it's cool. It's about where we were with f2 to f2.8 with B4 2/3" lenses. It's enough.
And lest we forget... IS. We can do the 'camcorder' trick and follow people hand held without making the audience reach for their sick bags. IS is not about tripod replacement - it's about getting what you can where you can. Canon's IS is nothing like the amazing 'ChickenCam' - http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/09/chicken-powered-steadicam-proves-poultry-has-a-future-in-hollywo/ (don't try this at home folks) and that is replicated somewhat in Sony's redonkulous NX30:
http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/nxcamcorders/hxr-nx30e/overview
We're not looking for that. The IS on the 24-105, plus the 'safe' DoF, means we can get a 'camcorderish' mode of action, made even more usable by Canon's proposed 'continuous AF' update later on. Meanwhile, I can do Establish, Intro, Close Up and Ultra Close Up on one lens during the interview, and even choose to film an IV hand held in walk-about mode with just one lens. Couldn't do that with the 17-55 - not really. Will keep both, AND the 11-16 AND the 35mm 1.4 AND the 50mm 1.4s (Sigma and Nikkor) AND the 135 f2, AND... I'm a lens slut.
Very thoughtful response Matt, and extremely helpful.
I've gotten so used to sticking my GH2 12-35mm combo in people's faces at this stage, but the C100 might be slightly more intimidating ... and it's also great to sit back a bit and not interfere (although with the GH2 people normally forget about it after awhile). I have to admit I've longed for more reach on the 12-35mm many times. But I also love the 12mm (24mm FF equiv) for establishing shots, especially with a tilt up.
I need to watch back some of my news features and see if the shots would have been possible on the 24-105.
Wish I could have them both ... but ain't going to happen.
I've gotten so used to sticking my GH2 12-35mm combo in people's faces at this stage, but the C100 might be slightly more intimidating ... and it's also great to sit back a bit and not interfere (although with the GH2 people normally forget about it after awhile). I have to admit I've longed for more reach on the 12-35mm many times. But I also love the 12mm (24mm FF equiv) for establishing shots, especially with a tilt up.
I need to watch back some of my news features and see if the shots would have been possible on the 24-105.
Wish I could have them both ... but ain't going to happen.
Matt Turner
Well-known member
I guess with the 24-105 you get the equivalent of a good standard lens package of 24, 35, 50, 85, 100 (macro) in one package.
It's not as good as having the primes but then again you don't have 5 lenses to change. It is L series though, and the f4 is not such a big problem with the C100 if you are in low light. IS has been great with the C100 on a monopod.
I haven't missed wider than 24 (yet), but I will need something longer than 105 for a job in January.
It's not as good as having the primes but then again you don't have 5 lenses to change. It is L series though, and the f4 is not such a big problem with the C100 if you are in low light. IS has been great with the C100 on a monopod.
I haven't missed wider than 24 (yet), but I will need something longer than 105 for a job in January.
What about when zooming with the 24-105? I have heard, and experienced first hand with Canon dslrs in video mode, exposure loss/gain of nearly one stop at either end of the range, even though it is supposed to be a constant aperture.
Is this being experienced by those using this lens with the C300/100?
Is this being experienced by those using this lens with the C300/100?