C300: C300MKIII: Yet another lens thread...

It's not a lens I would use for pretty OOF BGs, that's what cheap primes are for. I have to say in documentary, I find myself less and less enamored of shallow DOF anyway. I care more about the story and the shot composition.
On our docuseries, we purposely lit the interviews pretty plainly, nothing fancy and we purposely didn't go for too shallow DOF. I've said it before and I'll say it again, making documentaries for most subjects, that look too pretty
and produced, it takes me out of the story. I want real. I want the runner coming into our support van, lit by a flashlight, at 2:30 AM on a deserted Florida Highway, crying, sweating and hallucinating. I want my subject talking about how she's afraid
to die from the Cancer inside her body to look "real", not staged, perfectly lit with shallow DOF and a slider. Shot that one with her sitting on the floor in her apartment with just a touch of side window light. Setting up a big lighting circus
and composing the perfect shot with shallow DOF and pretty lighting would make them feel staged and really phony. It can be difficult for filmmakers who are used to getting paid to make everything look just so to let go of all that and relentlessly
pursue a real life story, throwing all most of the niceties of production out the window if they get in the way. In these situations, good sound, and making sure the subject is just in frame and in focus takes precedence.

Of course, it varies from subject to subject and story to story, I realize that. But for my own docuseries I've been shooting the past three years, the few setups we lit really nicely and had shallow DOF, they stick out like a sore thumb and look out of place,
like a corporate video stuck in the middle of a gritty story about real life. I now really regret shooting those interviews in that way. For documentaries, at least of this type, athletes, real life, life and death type stuff, overproduced looks bad.
 
seanarmada said:
Hey guys

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts... Lots to mull over.. I'm giving the 18-80 another serious look.. Still feeling a bit unsure for my particular style of filming but I'll admit its a very practical decision.

I just stumbled across a Fujinon PL mount lens that I hadn't ever noticed before. The price isn't ridiculous for what it is, does anyone have any experience?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1251350-REG/fujinon_xk6x20_19_90mm_t2_9_cabrio_premier.html
Click to expand...

The Fuji Cabrios are excellent lenses, I've shot with the 19-90 quite a bit. At three times the price of the 18-80, they are in another level of production and budgets though and I don't think they are available in EF although you could put the PL adapter on your C500 MKII?
 
puredrifting said:
The Fuji Cabrios are excellent lenses, I've shot with the 19-90 quite a bit. At three times the price of the 18-80, they are in another level of production and budgets though and I don't think they are available in EF although you could put the PL adapter on your C500 MKII?
Click to expand...

Indeed, they're at a totally different tier. Plus much heavier, etc. That would be the idea, buy the PL mount for my C300mkiii and if this is the workhorse lens then it stays on most of the time.

Anyways I realize these scenarios all add different complications vs. having one go-to lens you use most of the time. To Chris' point even something like a T3.5 would be more of a sweet spot. I remember when I first purchased my C100 years ago I had been using the 24-105 on my 5D for basic video work and it did the job. As soon as I popped it on the C100 the f4 left me feeling deflated. It wasn't until I got the 17-55 that I really embraced doc filming on that camera. I think the f4 on that lens (which I realize is a totally different beast from the 18-80) left me feeling very skeptical of anything slower than a 2.8 for a zoom that needs to work in a wide variety of scenarios.
 
puredrifting said:
It's not a lens I would use for pretty OOF BGs, that's what cheap primes are for. I have to say in documentary, I find myself less and less enamored of shallow DOF anyway. I care more about the story and the shot composition.
Click to expand...

When directors reach out to me about documentary projects and they say "we want to keep it cinematic, so we'll shoot shallow on all primes" on the inside my response is "So you want the footage to be shakier and less in focus than what I was originally going to give you?"

Personally I think capturing verite at f/4 with good IS and autofocus is the ticket and then pick up inserts and details with a shallow prime. My hunch is that most directors when watching the scene edited together wouldn't have known that 85% of the scene was filmed on a slow zoom. To me, if your verite content is compelling enough, no one should notice how it's being shot. Cut aways, inserts, establishing shots, etc. are where you can bring the polish back in with fast primes and give the entire program that "cinematic" look that directors are often looking for.

That said, (and I'm going to do a lot of tests to confirm this), with the built in stabilization of the C300MKIII this is the first time I would consider using a zoom or prime with no IS to film hand-held verite. The visual quality is different (not sure if better or worse), but the amount of stabilization in camera seems to be very close to what you'd get from a lens with IS with no in-body stabilization. Keep in mind that you lose the in-camera stabilization when shooting raw.
 
chris f said:
When directors reach out to me about documentary projects and they say "we want to keep it cinematic, so we'll shoot shallow on all primes" on the inside my response is "So you want the footage to be shakier and less in focus than what I was originally going to give you?"

Personally I think capturing verite at f/4 with good IS and autofocus is the ticket and then pick up inserts and details with a shallow prime. My hunch is that most directors when watching the scene edited together wouldn't have known that 85% of the scene was filmed on a slow zoom. To me, if your verite content is compelling enough, no one should notice how it's being shot. Cut aways, inserts, establishing shots, etc. are where you can bring the polish back in with fast primes and give the entire program that "cinematic" look that directors are often looking for.
Click to expand...

If money wasn't an issue would you purchase the 18-80 and be using it for most verite shooting at this point?
 
seanarmada said:
If money wasn't an issue would you purchase the 18-80 and be using it for most verite shooting at this point?
Click to expand...

Definitely. I'd probably aim to use that 85% of the time and then if I was in a situation that was low light maybe I'd switch to my Sigma 18-35 f.1.8, turn on in-body stabilization and do my best to hold steady.

One thing that's really nice about the 18-80 (besides the fact that I think the autofocus and image stabilization feels smoother than Canon's still lenses), is that the lens is parafocal, so you can quickly zoom in or out of a shot to get a tight or wide in a split second without having to refocus on your subject. I've found that to be really helpful in getting coverage when a scene is playing out in front of you really fast.
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
Definitely. I'd probably aim to use that 85% of the time and then if I was in a situation that was low light maybe I'd switch to my Sigma 18-35 f.1.8, turn on in-body stabilization and do my best to hold steady.

One thing that's really nice about the 18-80 (besides the fact that I think the autofocus and image stabilization feels smoother than Canon's still lenses), is that the lens is parafocal, so you can quickly zoom in or out of a shot to get a tight or wide in a split second without having to refocus on your subject. I've found that to be really helpful in getting coverage when a scene is playing out in front of you really fast.
Click to expand...

I agree. And honestly, for documentary footage, I have no problem running my C200 at ISO 2500 and I suspect the newer cameras would be significantly better at these higher ISOs. I'm not a fan of antiseptically clean footage anyway, a little noise and grain gives it some life.
 
seanarmada said:
Hey guys

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts... Lots to mull over.. I'm giving the 18-80 another serious look.. Still feeling a bit unsure for my particular style of filming but I'll admit its a very practical decision.

I just stumbled across a Fujinon PL mount lens that I hadn't ever noticed before. The price isn't ridiculous for what it is, does anyone have any experience?
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1251350-REG/fujinon_xk6x20_19_90mm_t2_9_cabrio_premier.html
Click to expand...

I'll try to keep it short. I have a client with a 20-120 and a few friends with copies, as well. On paper, it never excited me, but after I used my clients, I ended up liking it a lot more than I thought I would. Now, with that being said, one of my friends that has one will tell you that he bought it because of it's cost vs. the Canon 17-120 and he will also tell you that if he had it to do over, he would by the 17-120.

I have ~$75K-$90K worth of Fuji Premier 2/3" HD ENG zooms and have always loved Fuji lenses, but on the s35 front, Canon is clearly leading the field with the most versatile zooms for Doc, ENG & EFP on s35 cameras.
 
puredrifting said:
I agree. And honestly, for documentary footage, I have no problem running my C200 at ISO 2500 and I suspect the newer cameras would be significantly better at these higher ISOs. I'm not a fan of antiseptically clean footage anyway, a little noise and grain gives it some life.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say, puredrifting, including a dislike of antiseptic footage.

But didnt you say you were eschewing zooms altogether in favor of primes? Jk. Horses for courses

And that's the thing - dvxusers are all over the production map so we cant generalize about what gear is best. Even my shooting is all over the map, as I'm sure it is for many. Better just to analyze the capabilities of the equipment and we each make a decision about what we need and when

I often like to be at f/4 full-frame. But that equates to f/2.8 S35. Then sometimes shallow DOF beauty b-roll is the order of the day and it's f/1.4 + ND.

there are many situations just bright enough for human vision where T4.4 iso2500 is inadequate. But then you might go to a 1.4 prime instead of a 2.8 zoom anyway

Plus, the 20-120 is t3.5. The 17-120 is 2.95-3.9. So, the 18-80 is really not far behind its more expensive competitors

I'd love to have it in my bag but it wouldn't become my default lens and it's not worth it to me personally versus other places I could put the money. But if I needed an S35 cine zoom I would probably get the 18-80.

And you can definitely get an OOF BG at T4.4 S35. But my larger point about the rendering was that it's there even when the BG is just a little soft.

But for the same reasons I like an 18-270 sometimes (ie it gets the shot), a proper servo zoom would be great. I was shooting livestream today on a 70-200 stills lens, and the servo version would have been great since my zooms aren't edited out and I tried to pull them off smoothly but had to readjust focus as well. But the 18-80 would have been useless, I'd have needed the 70-200. And it's not a common situation for me so not worth buying...yet

There are so many factors to evaluate and they're each a spectrum not a binary. From prime to 20x zoom. From f/0.7 to f/6.3 max aperture. $100 to $100k. 100g to 5kg. Super soft to tack sharp across the frame. Bad breathing to no breathing. Etc

All in all, the 18-80 comes in really strong in every department and at a great price. If you need something cheaper, its too bad they haven't updated the 17-55. There are many really nice FF midrange zooms around

So much for being brief. Sorry, guys
 
Interesting thread and couldn't come at a better time as I'm also looking at my lens line up. I've shifted from two C200's to one C300 Mark iii and have a few duplicate lenses that I dont think I'll need.

The 18-80mm Cine-servo seems like a must as I've been living with the 16-35mm f/4 and 24/105mm f/4 as my go to lenses and they're fine, I absolutely don't mind an f/4 when you gain IS and the servo would be super handy for the theatre work I do plus I want that parfocal goodness.

I'm also want a set of cine-zoom primes and I keep seeing the DZOFILM Pictor Zooms pop up at the moment, seems like a very good price for what you get...https://cvp.com/product/dzofilm-20-55mm-t2.8-pictor-zoom-pl-bl or you could even get a re-housed Sigma 18-35mm for $1,500 http://www.pchood.com/index.php?route=product/product&keyword=sigma&category_id=0&product_id=356 although you do have to live with some issues on the re-housed versionss

Lots of choices at the moment.
 
Did you guys see that Duclos is adapting the Fuji 18-55 and 50-135 T2.9 lenses to RF mount?

Similar price to the 18-80 but faster and lacking AF/IS

They're asking $495 for the mount conversion or $405 on top of the lens price if you buy the lens directly from them

But in RF mount it's really only useful for the upcoming C70 etc. Or R5 in APS-C

But I think if I were buying, I'd get the 18-80 for the range, extra features, and EF mount

https://www.cined.com/duclos-lenses-fujinon-mk-r-r-mount-cinema-lens-conversion/
 
I have been trying out different lens from STILL to CINE over the years. the last two years has been the Sigma Cine 18-35mm and 50-100mm which both gave me nice visual - the 18-35mm lived on the c300.

I have jump to the C300 MKii and have changed my lenses choice. I have add three new lenses -Canon Servo 18-80mm, Canon 15.5-47mm and my parasite lens Canon 14.5-60mm. the 18-80mm is small enough to be a nice handheld setup but the parasite is tripod only.
 
ahalpert said:
I agree with most of what you say, puredrifting, including a dislike of antiseptic footage.

But didnt you say you were eschewing zooms altogether in favor of primes? Jk. Horses for courses

And that's the thing - dvxusers are all over the production map so we cant generalize about what gear is best. Even my shooting is all over the map, as I'm sure it is for many. Better just to analyze the capabilities of the equipment and we each make a decision about what we need and when

I often like to be at f/4 full-frame. But that equates to f/2.8 S35. Then sometimes shallow DOF beauty b-roll is the order of the day and it's f/1.4 + ND.

there are many situations just bright enough for human vision where T4.4 iso2500 is inadequate. But then you might go to a 1.4 prime instead of a 2.8 zoom anyway

Plus, the 20-120 is t3.5. The 17-120 is 2.95-3.9. So, the 18-80 is really not far behind its more expensive competitors

I'd love to have it in my bag but it wouldn't become my default lens and it's not worth it to me personally versus other places I could put the money. But if I needed an S35 cine zoom I would probably get the 18-80.

And you can definitely get an OOF BG at T4.4 S35. But my larger point about the rendering was that it's there even when the BG is just a little soft.

But for the same reasons I like an 18-270 sometimes (ie it gets the shot), a proper servo zoom would be great. I was shooting livestream today on a 70-200 stills lens, and the servo version would have been great since my zooms aren't edited out and I tried to pull them off smoothly but had to readjust focus as well. But the 18-80 would have been useless, I'd have needed the 70-200. And it's not a common situation for me so not worth buying...yet

There are so many factors to evaluate and they're each a spectrum not a binary. From prime to 20x zoom. From f/0.7 to f/6.3 max aperture. $100 to $100k. 100g to 5kg. Super soft to tack sharp across the frame. Bad breathing to no breathing. Etc

All in all, the 18-80 comes in really strong in every department and at a great price. If you need something cheaper, its too bad they haven't updated the 17-55. There are many really nice FF midrange zooms around

So much for being brief. Sorry, guys
Click to expand...

I am trying to use my primes more. Last night I did a rare still shoot for a friend who needed a graduation portrait for her on-line graduation and a business portrait for a new business card. I alternated between my EF 85mm f/1.8 and my 50mm f/1.8 STM
so even shooting stills, I am mostly using primes. OTOH, the five camera live stream from last week, definitely used all zooms because I had a director in my EarTec calling all kinds of framings in a live TV situation so primes would have been the wrong choice.
Definitely horses for courses.

I really wish Canon made a still version of the 18-80mm at an f/3.5 or 3.0. The EF S 17-55mm was a cool little lens but once you shoot with better glass like the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II or the CN E 18-80 t/4.4, you realize how mushy it is.
 
ahalpert said:
Did you guys see that Duclos is adapting the Fuji 18-55 and 50-135 T2.9 lenses to RF mount?

Similar price to the 18-80 but faster and lacking AF/IS

They're asking $495 for the mount conversion or $405 on top of the lens price if you buy the lens directly from them

But in RF mount it's really only useful for the upcoming C70 etc. Or R5 in APS-C

But I think if I were buying, I'd get the 18-80 for the range, extra features, and EF mount

https://www.cined.com/duclos-lenses-fujinon-mk-r-r-mount-cinema-lens-conversion/
Click to expand...

Since I have three XT-3s, I have been thinking about the Fujinon MKX pair for quite a while. I've rented them, really like them. But at $4k ea. I wouldn't be able to use them
on my C200, only my Fujis, which aren't in the same league as my C200 so I have ruled them out as much as I like them. The CNE 18-80mm t/4.4 is in the same price range
but has a lot more length than the MKX 18-55mm, albeit it's slower, but also has IS, servo and AF. Too many features to give up for the stuff I shoot.

I'm not really a cine shooter so the Canon is better fit for my needs.
 
IF I didn’t have the 17-120 or the money to have bought it, I would have probably already purchased the 18-80. At a certain point and for certain things, you’ve gotta say F the still zoom BS and get a real parfocal zoom meant for motion work(i.e: video/cine).
 
ahalpert said:
Did you guys see that Duclos is adapting the Fuji 18-55 and 50-135 T2.9 lenses to RF mount?

Similar price to the 18-80 but faster and lacking AF/IS

They're asking $495 for the mount conversion or $405 on top of the lens price if you buy the lens directly from them

But in RF mount it's really only useful for the upcoming C70 etc. Or R5 in APS-C

But I think if I were buying, I'd get the 18-80 for the range, extra features, and EF mount

https://www.cined.com/duclos-lenses-fujinon-mk-r-r-mount-cinema-lens-conversion/
Click to expand...

I actually think the Komodo played a huge role in them deciding to adapt them to RF Mount.
 
Interesting thread! I am still waiting for my C300 MK III which I will mostly use with my PL Zooms and primes in the beginning but would like to add some AF and IS lenses into the mix. Have been thinking about the 18-80 as well and I will try it as soon as my camera arrives. I am wondering what primes you Canon shooters use with the 18-80 when you need smaller and faster glas? I ordered a 35 f2 IS to get my feet wet in AF land (never had AF in a video camera before), what would be great performing AF lenses for 20, 24, 28 and 50? For example is the 50 1.8 STM better suited for dpaf than the 50 1.4 or 50 1.2L?
I would love Canon to make a range of smallish t2 primes with the mechanics, AF and IS of the 18-80...
 
MartinF said:
Interesting thread! I am still waiting for my C300 MK III which I will mostly use with my PL Zooms and primes in the beginning but would like to add some AF and IS lenses into the mix. Have been thinking about the 18-80 as well and I will try it as soon as my camera arrives. I am wondering what primes you Canon shooters use with the 18-80 when you need smaller and faster glas? I ordered a 35 f2 IS to get my feet wet in AF land (never had AF in a video camera before), what would be great performing AF lenses for 20, 24, 28 and 50? For example is the 50 1.8 STM better suited for dpaf than the 50 1.4 or 50 1.2L?
I would love Canon to make a range of smallish t2 primes with the mechanics, AF and IS of the 18-80...
Click to expand...

I can offer some feedback on the still primes:

EF 28mm f/1.8 - handy to have prime, very old design so no USM/STM motors but semi usable MF although I think it's still focus by wire but it has more throw (rotation) than the STM lenses
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - super cheap, but VERY sharp and nice colors/looks. I wouldn't spend the money on an f/1.2 the DOF is too shallow and if you cannot use it at f/1.2, why spend the money and haul the weight? And the f/1.4 is about the same quality (for video) as the f/1.8. If you shoot a lot of stills, the f/1.4 is better but for video, you'll not notice the difference.
EF 85mm f/1.8 - Great lens but no IS or STM motors so a bit slow and clunky to focus in comparison to the 50mm f/1.8 STM. Beautiful rendtitions of image though and realtively cheap for what it's giving you, a superb video image.

All three of these inexpensive lenses are sharper than any of my still Canon zooms, all are faster and they all weigh less too. I keep them in my bag full time and they do come in handy here and there. Not sure if a lot of video shooters understand why primes, from an optical engineering standpoint, are so much better? Fewer elements = fewer chances for softness and CA. Fewer elements mean easier to design closer to optical perfection. Fewer elements means smaller size and cheaper to build to high performance than zooms. If you look at the zoom cross sections, they are rife with optical compromise, many more optical elements which means less reliability and greater chances, numerically, to introduce CA, softness from slight misalignment. That's why the 50mm prime offer so much bang for the buck, optically, it's the easiest to design lens and one of the most popular so you get the insane economies of scale working in your favor too.

Several other DPs I work with and know have been on the same kind of self-imposed edict I have been on which is only shoot with zooms when you have to. If you are in situations where
primes aren't a handicap, use them, like sit down interviews or even hand held for music videos and commercials or even BTS occasionally when you can get in close to the action using your feet.
The real handicap with the Canon still primes is manual focusing, it's kind of useless to try to manually focus these lenses. That's why I've been looking at the SLR Magic, and lately the new Meikes
as they will have great manual focusing ability, albeit at a much higher cost and size/weight. The Canon AF with the still lenses though, especially zone AF is pretty usable though for a lot of situations
but it would be nice to have the ability to get the manual focus aesthetic for some more creative projects.

I use primes and zooms of course, and in many situations, you kind of have to use zooms but I'm always looking at each shooting situation and strategizing where I can use primes
instead simply because I enjoy using them and they often mean I can keep from having to crank up my ISO to deal with slower zooms.

Oh, and the pancake EF S 24mm f/2.8 STM is GARBAGE! Worst Canon lens I have ever owned. Don't buy it. Soft everywhere. I have no experience with the Canon EF 20mm.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about the 18-80 more and more since this thread started, really appreciate everyone sharing their experiences here. I've got a shoot coming up in a few weeks that will be a good test for the 18-80, so I'll rent it and see after that.

I just had a thought and wanted to see if anyone can comment further. From what I remember the 17-55 suffers from light loss at the longer end - exactly how much I'm not sure? Thinking about the way I shoot I make the most use of the shallower DOF closer to 55mm for portrait style/isolated shots. If it's the case that the 17-55 ends up being closer to f4 at the long end, in practical use, then I wonder if the 18-80 would even be all that different? At the wide end f4 is more preferable most of the time anyways..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top