C300: C300 MKII - The battle of the 35mm's

S

seanarmada

Well-known member
Hi guys

I realize conversations on these lenses have been covered piecemeal in different posts. I'm currently in need of a fast 35mm prime and I'd love for it to work well with the DPAF on the C300 MKII.

I'm assuming the Canon 35mm f1.4L II is the best bet, simply by virtue of the fact that it's new and it's Canon. I've used and love the Sigma 35mm ART, and of course it's quite a bit cheaper. I wouldn't be objected to the Sigma 18-35, either.

Does anyone have experience with any of these lenses on the C300 MKII? Any thoughts on auto focus capabilities?
 
Even though the 35mm 1.4L II is a superior lens and might be one of the best Canon lenses ever made, I couldn't justify the price back when I was looking at it (it's a couple of hundred less now).

Another option to consider is the 35mm f/2. I always thought it was such a fantastic lens (and it has IS) and when I found out about the DxO ratings, they marked it up there as well with a high score for sharpness (34) and overall (40). It's #2 overall for Canon primes behind the 1.4L II at #1. Of course there are variables to consider, but nevertheless, it's a great lens for the price.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html

Again, the list doesn't mean everything, but worth the acknowledgment.

Canon.jpg
 
NorBro said:
Even though the 35mm 1.4L II is a superior lens and might be one of the best Canon lenses ever made, I couldn't justify the price back when I was looking at it (it's a couple of hundred less now).

Another option to consider is the 35mm f/2. I always thought it was such a fantastic lens (and it has IS) and when I found out about the DxO ratings, they marked it up there as well with a high score for sharpness (34) and overall (40). It's #2 overall for Canon primes behind the 1.4L II at #1. Of course there are variables to consider, but nevertheless, it's a great lens for the price.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html

Again, the list doesn't mean everything, but worth the acknowledgment.

View attachment 123140
Click to expand...

I've been carefully considering the F2 as well. I can't believe Canon isn't putting IS on more of these primes. The F1.4 aperture really appeals to me, not so much for low light capability but to get a more cinematic image when I need it. F2 is no slouch, either.
 
Own the Canon 35mm f1.4L II, use it on the c300 mk ii, and really like it. Shot a commercial last month with many different setups/locations. I'd guess over half of them were on this lens.

Haven't really needed a 35mm lens with IS as I've been mostly this focal length on a tripod or gimbal. That said, I see how IS could be very useful when shooting with the c300 mk ii stripped down to its essentials. The IS on the 100mm macro was super useful recently, allowing me to handhold for a 1.25 hour long take for a documentary interview I mistakenly thought was going to be much shorter.

To state the obvious, the Canon 35mm f1.4L II is great for stills as well.

I own the Sigma 50 Art and have been debating picking up the 35mm. I'm sure it's a really great lens as well. I don't really need it as the Canon is more than covering my use case thus far.
 
Kohl said:
Own the Canon 35mm f1.4L II, use it on the c300 mk ii, and really like it. Shot a commercial last month with many different setups/locations. I'd guess over half of them were on this lens.

Haven't really needed a 35mm lens with IS as I've been mostly this focal length on a tripod or gimbal. That said, I see how IS could be very useful when shooting with the c300 mk ii stripped down to its essentials. The IS on the 100mm macro was super useful recently, allowing me to handhold for a 1.25 hour long take for a documentary interview I mistakenly thought was going to be much shorter.

To state the obvious, the Canon 35mm f1.4L II is great for stills as well.

I own the Sigma 50 Art and have been debating picking up the 35mm. I'm sure it's a really great lens as well. I don't really need it as the Canon is more than covering my use case thus far.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback Kohl! Does the 35 f1.4 work quite well with the DPAF from your experience?
 
seanarmada said:
Thanks for the feedback Kohl! Does the 35 f1.4 work quite well with the DPAF from your experience?
Click to expand...

I haven't experimented with and tested DPAF with this lens (or any other) in a production environment enough to speak from enough experience. Perhaps someone with more experience can speak to that.

FWIW I haven't found DPAF to be a 'set it and forget' type of feature. Using it almost seems like a different skillset - just haven't had time to learn it yet. Make sense?

It's a little odd/ironic actually as DPAF and this lens in particular were a big draw for me to purchase this camera, but the work I've been doing has either not required it or I just pulled focus myself as I've been reluctant to trust DPAF with someone else's money on the line just yet. I could see that changing, but I need to test and practice more to accurately gauge its strength and weaknesses to use it effectively with confidence.
 
I have had the Canon 35mm F2 IS for about a year and it's one of my favourite lenses. The IS is great for hand held work, it's tack sharp and the ring has a nice smooth focus action. I don't have a C300 but use it on my C100 (occasionally) but frequently on my FS5 with Metabones adapters.
 
Kohl said:
I haven't experimented with and tested DPAF with this lens (or any other) in a production environment enough to speak from enough experience. Perhaps someone with more experience can speak to that.

FWIW I haven't found DPAF to be a 'set it and forget' type of feature. Using it almost seems like a different skillset - just haven't had time to learn it yet. Make sense?

It's a little odd/ironic actually as DPAF and this lens in particular were a big draw for me to purchase this camera, but the work I've been doing has either not required it or I just pulled focus myself as I've been reluctant to trust DPAF with someone else's money on the line just yet. I could see that changing, but I need to test and practice more to accurately gauge its strength and weaknesses to use it effectively with confidence.
Click to expand...

I hear you, I'm still reluctant also. The first time I tried it I botched a few shots, but I've learnt to work with its limitations. I was using an 85 f1.2 recently and shot my entire interview wide open and the DPAF worked amazingly well. From then on I've been looking at it more seriously :)
 
andykwilkinson said:
I have had the Canon 35mm F2 IS for about a year and it's one of my favourite lenses. The IS is great for hand held work, it's tack sharp and the ring has a nice smooth focus action. I don't have a C300 but use it on my C100 (occasionally) but frequently on my FS5 with Metabones adapters.
Click to expand...

Very good to know, thanks for sharing that. I'm leaning a little more towards the f2 now. Right now it's $700 CAD brand new in Toronto which is a pretty solid value.
 
seanarmada said:
I hear you, I'm still reluctant also. The first time I tried it I botched a few shots, but I've learnt to work with its limitations. I was using an 85 f1.2 recently and shot my entire interview wide open and the DPAF worked amazingly well. From then on I've been looking at it more seriously :)
Click to expand...

I use the 85 1.2 + dpaf on the c100 mark ii often, shooting at 1.2 - 2.8 and the dpaf works great! But OP keep in mind that there are only certain lenses that allow you to use the dpaf with face detection; otherwise dpaf is only usable in the center of the frame, and those lenses are certain stm lenses (unless this have been changed on the c300ii). I'm following this post because I'm also interested in the lenses you've mentioned. Hopefully there'll be more feedback from actual users.
 
I don't know how the DPAF works on the C300 Mark II, but on the 5D Mark IV you can have it constantly work but not focus automatically.

So I use it in different ways...

When I have the camera on a gimbal and I am tracking someone's face while they are walking or they are moving around a lot, I let the camera work and everything is automatic.

Other times, I turn that off and I just refocus by manually pressing the focus button on the camera or a remote. So if I'm shooting an interview and the DOF is super shallow and I see on my monitor that the subject moved a bit and may be out-of-focus, I press the button to refocus.

Then there are also speed settings...the focus can fly in super quick or be more of a slow rack focus.

I like to show people this video - https://vimeo.com/153889003
 
I only have the C100 DPAF, so my experience only pertains to DPAF on that camera. The AF tracking on both the Sigma 18-35mm and the Canon 35mm f/1.4 II are about the same as far as I can tell. The motors work at about the same speed. Not exceptionally quickly, but fairly naturally. Version 1 of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 was a bit of a dog. The CA made me regret whenever I pulled it out to use it. Upgrading to version II was well worth the cost. I actually think the Sigma 18-35mm is a more useful lens if you do events or do close quarter interviews. For the price, it is well worth owning.
 
seanarmada said:
I hear you, I'm still reluctant also. The first time I tried it I botched a few shots, but I've learnt to work with its limitations. I was using an 85 f1.2 recently and shot my entire interview wide open and the DPAF worked amazingly well. From then on I've been looking at it more seriously :)
Click to expand...

Very good to know that you found it effective on the 85mm at 1.2... I tried it with the 85 wide open and it was hunting a ton. Very likely due to a variety of factors, low contrast scene, my own learning curve. Was running two cameras and sound simultaneously for stretches that day. Too few hands, only one brain. Things like that.

What are your settings when you use it this way - face only, af speed, response, et al?

Also, point of information, my reasoning for going with the 35mm f1.4L II instead of the 35mm f2 IS is because the super sharp f1.4 is very effective for astrophotography. If I were mostly using it for video or street shooting, the 35mm f2 IS would be solid I'm sure.

NorBro said:
I don't know how the DPAF works on the C300 Mark II, but on the 5D Mark IV you can have it constantly work but not focus automatically.

So I use it in different ways...

When I have the camera on a gimbal and I am tracking someone's face while they are walking or they are moving around a lot, I let the camera work and everything is automatic.

Other times, I turn that off and I just refocus by manually pressing the focus button on the camera or a remote. So if I'm shooting an interview and the DOF is super shallow and I see on my monitor that the subject moved a bit and may be out-of-focus, I press the button to refocus.

Then there are also speed settings...the focus can fly in super quick or be more of a slow rack focus.

I like to show people this video - https://vimeo.com/153889003
Click to expand...

Super useful to learn. Thank you.

And per the video showcasing the touch screen, gotta say it's pretty impressive. Was messing around with it on the 5D4 at the Canon Professional Services Office in northern New Jersey (just 20 minutes from NYC, so awesome). I'm trying to hold off on purchasing another DSLR because the 5D3 more than covers my stills needs, but man that touch screen DPAF is really something.

cpreston said:
The AF tracking on both the Sigma 18-35mm and the Canon 35mm f/1.4 II are about the same as far as I can tell. The motors work at about the same speed. Not exceptionally quickly, but fairly naturally.
Click to expand...

Very good to know. Thank you for sharing. Sorely tempted to pick that lens up. Spoiled for choices these days. Good problems.
 
Kohl said:
Own the Canon 35mm f1.4L II, use it on the c300 mk ii, and really like it. Shot a commercial last month with many different setups/locations. I'd guess over half of them were on this lens.

Haven't really needed a 35mm lens with IS as I've been mostly this focal length on a tripod or gimbal. That said, I see how IS could be very useful when shooting with the c300 mk ii stripped down to its essentials. The IS on the 100mm macro was super useful recently, allowing me to handhold for a 1.25 hour long take for a documentary interview I mistakenly thought was going to be much shorter.

To state the obvious, the Canon 35mm f1.4L II is great for stills as well.

I own the Sigma 50 Art and have been debating picking up the 35mm. I'm sure it's a really great lens as well. I don't really need it as the Canon is more than covering my use case thus far.
Click to expand...

While I love my Canon zooms, I looked through a ton of stills I shot with the 80D and looked at a lot of interviews and b-roll footage I recently shot and honestly, I could do 90% of my shots easily with just the 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Objectively, I still think primes are better built, sharper and optically superior to all still zoom lenses, other than my beloved 70-200 2.8 IS II, which I believe is as good almost almost all Canon prime stills lenses.
 
puredrifting said:
While I love my Canon zooms, I looked through a ton of stills I shot with the 80D and looked at a lot of interviews and b-roll footage I recently shot and honestly, I could do 90% of my shots easily with just the 35mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Objectively, I still think primes are better built, sharper and optically superior to all still zoom lenses, other than my beloved 70-200 2.8 IS II, which I believe is as good almost almost all Canon prime stills lenses.
Click to expand...

The director/cinematographer I've been working with (and learning a ton from) for a while now almost always shoots primes. Entire commercial I'd mentioned earlier in this thread was on the 35 and 50 with one set up on the 85. I bring that 70 200 - which I love as well, so great- to almost every shoot and ask if we'll use it. He always tells me to keep it in the bag.

For documentaries that aren't sit down interviews on tripods, I'm really digging zooming in with my feet, as it were. Of course, this style is not realistic in many scenarios, but I prefer it if at all possible. As an aside, the 180mm macro at f3.5 on a monopod is just lovely if the style of the shoot can sustain it.
 
Which 85 1.2 or 1.8? Didn't see a Canon 85 1.4. How does that 85 compare to the 70-200 2.8II? Do you end up stopping down below 2.0 or is it just too shallow?
 
KarlSutton said:
Which 85 1.2 or 1.8? Didn't see a Canon 85 1.4. How does that 85 compare to the 70-200 2.8II? Do you end up stopping down below 2.0 or is it just too shallow?
Click to expand...

Typo, meant the 85mm 1.8. I also have the 50mm 1.4 and sometimes get confused about which is which as far as lens speed, I also have the Nikon 85mm 1.4 for my Nikon stills camera. I have used the Canon EOS 85mm 1.2. To me, one of the most overrated lenses in the Canon lineup. Super expensive, big and heavy, focus by wire, slow AF. Maybe good for stills but for video, terrible lens. 85mm 1.8 is the stellar value. Great for video, reasonable size, weight and cost. I have shot with the 85mm 1.8 wide open on occasion, it is workable as long as your subject isn't moving around a ton. Fast lenses never look their best wide open but sometimes you have to use them that way if you don't want to crank your ISO way, way up. To my eye, the 70-200 2.8 IS II has a little something at 80-90mm that the 85mm 1.8 doesn't, it's just a bit of sheen, edge definition and smoothness. Not a big difference, a subtle one, possibly a bit better contrast ratio as well?

DVXUser and Letus Helix maven Slavik B uses the EOS 35mm F2 on his C100 on the Helix, he swears by it and may talk me into buying it too. The new 35mm Macro is tempting, that little ring light and macro ability are both pretty cool but then you have a 2.8 max lens versus a 2.0. Choices, choices.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top