C300: C300MKIII: Yet another lens thread...

S

seanarmada

Well-known member
Hi all

I know there are a few older threads about the 17-55, but wanted to start a new one, with new cameras and lens options in the mix now..

I received my C300mkiii about 6 weeks ago and I've gotten a fair bit of use out of it. I continue to use the 17-55 as my workhorse lens, but it's really being stretched to its limits with the new sensor. The vignetting isn't terrible but its even more apparent now, and in general I'd like up up my game with better quality optics, potentially better autofocus capabilities, etc.

So the age old question of what the hell to replace the 17-55 with??

Right now I'm mulling two options

- Rounding out my L-series kit and picking up a 16-35mm f2.8 + 24-70mm f2.8. Neither has IS and its now 2 lenses instead of one, but much better optics. I'm also starting to embrace not having IS, particularly now that the mkiii is better suited to shoulder mount setups
- Very curious about these new DZOFilm lenses, the 20-55mm T2.8 in particular. The price is very reasonable and appears well built, but there arent many in-depth reviews yet

What are you guys thinking these days?
 
I have a selection of Canon L-series glass and love the 100mm 2.8 Macro but after doing some testing with a friends lenses, the three most recent lenses I've purchased are all Tamron. I was sceptical at first but they're just as sharp and in some cases sharper than the Canon L-series, they are built like tanks and they have the benefit of IS in a lot of their lenses. I have the 24-70 2.8 with IS and that's a great lens. I also have the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 with IS built in. These are all SP lenses (their high end glass) and all G2 (generation 2). The IS works with my C300 MKIII really nicely. They're nice and sharp and just as good as as the Canon's IMO. I also bought the Tamron 35mm F1.4 prime which is known as being sharper than the Sigma and Canon equivalents. The autofocus is great on that lens too and is a 50mm equivalent on my C300 MKIII. Hopefully some food for thought.
 
boosh said:
I have a selection of Canon L-series glass and love the 100mm 2.8 Macro but after doing some testing with a friends lenses, the three most recent lenses I've purchased are all Tamron. I was sceptical at first but they're just as sharp and in some cases sharper than the Canon L-series, they are built like tanks and they have the benefit of IS in a lot of their lenses. I have the 24-70 2.8 with IS and that's a great lens. I also have the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 with IS built in. These are all SP lenses (their high end glass) and all G2 (generation 2). The IS works with my C300 MKIII really nicely. They're nice and sharp and just as good as as the Canon's IMO. I also bought the Tamron 35mm F1.4 prime which is known as being sharper than the Sigma and Canon equivalents. The autofocus is great on that lens too and is a 50mm equivalent on my C300 MKIII. Hopefully some food for thought.
Click to expand...

That's really helpful info! I picked up the 35mm f1.8 with IS years ago and it worked perfectly with my C100, but wouldn't communicate with my C300mkII at all so I sold it and haven't thought about Tamron since. I'm going to look into these two.

Do you notice a big difference with colour rendition vs. your L glass?
 
boosh said:
I have a selection of Canon L-series glass and love the 100mm 2.8 Macro but after doing some testing with a friends lenses, the three most recent lenses I've purchased are all Tamron. I was sceptical at first but they're just as sharp and in some cases sharper than the Canon L-series, they are built like tanks and they have the benefit of IS in a lot of their lenses. I have the 24-70 2.8 with IS and that's a great lens. I also have the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 with IS built in. These are all SP lenses (their high end glass) and all G2 (generation 2). The IS works with my C300 MKIII really nicely. They're nice and sharp and just as good as as the Canon's IMO. I also bought the Tamron 35mm F1.4 prime which is known as being sharper than the Sigma and Canon equivalents. The autofocus is great on that lens too and is a 50mm equivalent on my C300 MKIII. Hopefully some food for thought.
Click to expand...

One question actually.. How is manually focusing on those lenses? Fairly smooth/dampened rings?
 
I've been really happy with the Tamron glass after being very sceptical initially. For me, the IS is really useful so to have sharp 2.8 zoom lenses with the IS built in is just great - I don't think any other lenses out there offer IS at F2.8 on so many of their zoom lenses. In regards to colour rendition, I've not noticed any difference but I haven't done a side by side comparison. That being said, we filmed something a few weeks back on 2 x S1H's with a Tamron 24-70 on mine and a Canon 70-200 on the other. Colours looked identical on the Ninja-V's we were both using.
 
The focus rings on the Tamron's seem fine. Not much different to the Canons, other than the focus direction is in reverse
 
I'm in the same boat. I own the CN-E 18-80 and it literally lived on the EVA1. When I switched to the C300iii I found it a bit too heavy for handheld shooting and I purchased the 17-55/2.8 for flexible run and gun with AF. It's okay but it has more chromatic aberration and the 18-80 is visible sharper. Unfortunately I didn't find a better lens in this range. For r&g 24mm is too long on the short end and 35mm is too short at the long end.
 
seanarmada said:
Hi all

I know there are a few older threads about the 17-55, but wanted to start a new one, with new cameras and lens options in the mix now..

I received my C300mkiii about 6 weeks ago and I've gotten a fair bit of use out of it. I continue to use the 17-55 as my workhorse lens, but it's really being stretched to its limits with the new sensor. The vignetting isn't terrible but its even more apparent now, and in general I'd like up up my game with better quality optics, potentially better autofocus capabilities, etc.

So the age old question of what the hell to replace the 17-55 with??

Right now I'm mulling two options

- Rounding out my L-series kit and picking up a 16-35mm f2.8 + 24-70mm f2.8. Neither has IS and its now 2 lenses instead of one, but much better optics. I'm also starting to embrace not having IS, particularly now that the mkiii is better suited to shoulder mount setups
- Very curious about these new DZOFilm lenses, the 20-55mm T2.8 in particular. The price is very reasonable and appears well built, but there arent many in-depth reviews yet

What are you guys thinking these days?
Click to expand...

Tough question but after doing a five day shoot with five C200s and a bunch of still lenses, I am even more fond of the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4, it is a great, really useful lens.
The focal range is perfect for a LOT of situations and the t/4.4 isn't a problem unless you do weddings or cannot light your shots (I light almost everything as much and as often as I can)
but for those rare occasions when you cannot light, the C300 MKIII looks great at high ISOs so I don't feel the t/4.4 is much of a handicap. I keep a set of EF still primes, 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 STM
and 85mm f/1.8 in my bag for those times I need shallower DOF or a faster lens.

My 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is pretty much not used much any more. It's just not a great lens. It's a so so lens.

I just used the new 24-70 f/2.8 on this same shoot. Meh. Not a great lens for video IMHO. Not wide enough for S35, no IS and it's expensive. 16-35mm is a nice lens but so short, feels like you'll constantly be changing lenses.

I would tell you to rent the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4 and see if you like it as much as I do. There really is NOTHING even remotely like it as it's the amlgamation of a B4 zoom, a cine and a still lens. Very unique lens and it did look noticeably
better than any of the L lenses we were using. If I can find a clean used one that's a deal, I'm jumping on it. I have two colleagues who are C300 MKII shooters and both of them have the 18-80 and love them, it's a great all arounder
and a solid investment as a lot of EVA 1 and even Sony shooters use it. As much as I find zooms a bit cheesy looking at times, it is handy to have a servo zoom lens, lots of directors are always in my EarTec asking me for a slow push in, etc. in
live streaming and for documentary/event, doing slight reframing adjustments while rolling is the norm.

As far as the DZOs, intriguing but giving up AF and IS rules them out for me as my bread and butter lenses. Nice for cine shoots, music videos, etc. but that focus rotation means you're stuck using a FF or having ACs, you need 180-200 degree for handheld MF cine lenses.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Tough question but after doing a five day shoot with five C200s and a bunch of still lenses, I am even more fond of the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4, it is a great, really useful lens.
The focal range is perfect for a LOT of situations and the t/4.4 isn't a problem unless you do weddings or cannot light your shots (I light almost everything as much and as often as I can)
but for those rare occasions when you cannot light, the C300 MKIII looks great at high ISOs so I don't feel the t/4.4 is much of a handicap. I keep a set of EF still primes, 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 STM
and 85mm f/1.8 in my bag for those times I need shallower DOF or a faster lens.

My 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is pretty much not used much any more. It's just not a great lens. It's a so so lens.

I just used the new 24-70 f/2.8 on this same shoot. Meh. Not a great lens for video IMHO. Not wide enough for S35, no IS and it's expensive. 16-35mm is a nice lens but so short, feels like you'll constantly be changing lenses.

I would tell you to rent the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4 and see if you like it as much as I do. There really is NOTHING even remotely like it as it's the amlgamation of a B4 zoom, a cine and a still lens. Very unique lens and it did look noticeably
better than any of the L lenses we were using. If I can find a clean used one that's a deal, I'm jumping on it. I have two colleagues who are C300 MKII shooters and both of them have the 18-80 and love them, it's a great all arounder
and a solid investment as a lot of EVA 1 and even Sony shooters use it. As much as I find zooms a bit cheesy looking at times, it is handy to have a servo zoom lens, lots of directors are always in my EarTec asking me for a slow push in, etc. in
live streaming and for documentary/event, doing slight reframing adjustments while rolling is the norm.

As far as the DZOs, intriguing but giving up AF and IS rules them out for me as my bread and butter lenses. Nice for cine shoots, music videos, etc. but that focus rotation means you're stuck using a FF or having ACs, you need 180-200 degree for handheld MF cine lenses.
Click to expand...

What 28mm 1.8 is there?
 
puredrifting said:
Tough question but after doing a five day shoot with five C200s and a bunch of still lenses, I am even more fond of the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4, it is a great, really useful lens.
The focal range is perfect for a LOT of situations and the t/4.4 isn't a problem unless you do weddings or cannot light your shots (I light almost everything as much and as often as I can)
but for those rare occasions when you cannot light, the C300 MKIII looks great at high ISOs so I don't feel the t/4.4 is much of a handicap. I keep a set of EF still primes, 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 STM
and 85mm f/1.8 in my bag for those times I need shallower DOF or a faster lens.

My 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is pretty much not used much any more. It's just not a great lens. It's a so so lens.

I just used the new 24-70 f/2.8 on this same shoot. Meh. Not a great lens for video IMHO. Not wide enough for S35, no IS and it's expensive. 16-35mm is a nice lens but so short, feels like you'll constantly be changing lenses.

I would tell you to rent the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4 and see if you like it as much as I do. There really is NOTHING even remotely like it as it's the amlgamation of a B4 zoom, a cine and a still lens. Very unique lens and it did look noticeably
better than any of the L lenses we were using. If I can find a clean used one that's a deal, I'm jumping on it. I have two colleagues who are C300 MKII shooters and both of them have the 18-80 and love them, it's a great all arounder
and a solid investment as a lot of EVA 1 and even Sony shooters use it. As much as I find zooms a bit cheesy looking at times, it is handy to have a servo zoom lens, lots of directors are always in my EarTec asking me for a slow push in, etc. in
live streaming and for documentary/event, doing slight reframing adjustments while rolling is the norm.

As far as the DZOs, intriguing but giving up AF and IS rules them out for me as my bread and butter lenses. Nice for cine shoots, music videos, etc. but that focus rotation means you're stuck using a FF or having ACs, you need 180-200 degree for handheld MF cine lenses.
Click to expand...

Would the 18-135 set to f5.6 hold up anywhere in the ballpark ?
 
Barry1908 said:
Would the 18-135 set to f5.6 hold up anywhere in the ballpark ?
Click to expand...

Not even close. I have the EF 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 STM IS. On the C200 and the 300 MKII, it vignettes like crazy, so much that I can even see the edge of the frame go to black outside the imaging area.
It's not sharp and the colors are meh. I would hope that a $4,600 lens and a $300.00 kit lens would have a lot of image quality differences.
 
Yeah, the 18-80mm is as sharp as the CN-E primes, and if you try it out, you will see that 1) it's parfocal and 2) its breathing is minimal which is not often noted, and 3) it's flaring is well under control. Great piece of optical engineering by Canon! The only thing is it's slow but the DGO sensor of the C300 III should allow you to bump your ISO up one stop or maybe*?* to stops up from the C200. So just curious - what IS a great photo zoom that works well with the C200/C300 III, and covers the sensor well? I mean, besides the Canon 16-35mm vIII??
 
In the same boat, for extreme run and gun doc shoots the 17-55 is tough to beat in terms of range and speed when IS is a must.

Not a one-lens-solution, but the Sigma 18-35 + 50-100 isn't a terrible combo to cover most situations. No IS of course and the 50-100mm is a tad heavy.
 
I own a 17-120 and I love it. And there’s nothing else like it in the s35 lens world. But it’s a big, heavy, expensive beast.

I did a few days on a reality show a little over a month ago and their rigs were C300/II’s with the 18-80 and 70-200 compact servos and I really did like the 18-80. I really wish they would have had that lens when they introduced the original C300. Life would have been a lot easier. The big drawback of that lens, though, is it’s pretty slow at T4.4, but it’s pretty versatile, especially for handheld and b-roll. There’s nothing else really like it for the money. Even at T4.4, I’d rather shoot on that ANY day vs. a 17-55 still lens.
 
Run&Gun said:
I own a 17-120 and I love it. And there’s nothing else like it in the s35 lens world. But it’s a big, heavy, expensive beast.

I did a few days on a reality show a little over a month ago and their rigs were C300/II’s with the 18-80 and 70-200 compact servos and I really did like the 18-80. I really wish they would have had that lens when they introduced the original C300. Life would have been a lot easier. The big drawback of that lens, though, is it’s pretty slow at T4.4, but it’s pretty versatile, especially for handheld and b-roll. There’s nothing else really like it for the money. Even at T4.4, I’d rather shoot on that ANY day vs. a 17-55 still lens.
Click to expand...

I concur. We just had five C200s in a row set up for a shoot and three of the cameras wore still lenses (EF 24-70mm f/2.8, EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II and EF S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, while the two cameras I was minding each had the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4. I lit the set to give me the exposure I wanted which happened to be t/4.5 and the 18-80 ran all day wide open and it looked superb, noticeably better than the cameras with the still lenses. I was able to go to our vMix Live system and really A/B between all of the cameras and that's where I kind of fell in love with the 18-80mm. It's a truly unique, interesting lens that makes people look their best, kind of like how the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does the same, it has this magic particularly about shooting people.

I reviewed it when it came out for HD Video Pro and used it for a bunch of documentary shoots and it was good but in the studio, it was even better. Director asked for a couple of very slow servo zoom ins as we went to roll in segments like you would see on Fallon or Kimmel and the moves looked great.
 
puredrifting said:
I concur. We just had five C200s in a row set up for a shoot and three of the cameras wore still lenses (EF 24-70mm f/2.8, EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II and EF S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, while the two cameras I was minding each had the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4. I lit the set to give me the exposure I wanted which happened to be t/4.5 and the 18-80 ran all day wide open and it looked superb, noticeably better than the cameras with the still lenses. I was able to go to our vMix Live system and really A/B between all of the cameras and that's where I kind of fell in love with the 18-80mm. It's a truly unique, interesting lens that makes people look their best, kind of like how the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II does the same, it has this magic particularly about shooting people.

I reviewed it when it came out for HD Video Pro and used it for a bunch of documentary shoots and it was good but in the studio, it was even better. Director asked for a couple of very slow servo zoom ins as we went to roll in segments like you would see on Fallon or Kimmel and the moves looked great.
Click to expand...

Funny enough, I actually did not use the servo on it. I just zoomed manually when I wanted to change frame/focal length. But I shoot my 17-120 with the servo on all the time.
 
As a former 17-55 lover, I typically roll with the 16-35 f/4 IS and I find it still works good. IMO for doc work shooting at 35mm and taking one step closer always looks more dynamic than being at 55mm. The only time I miss the 55mm range is wanting to pick up b-roll detail inserts.

That said I always rent the 18-80 when there is budget. Love that lens. T4.4 sounds slow (and it kinda is) but it gives you the exact same exposure of an f/4 lens. F/3.5 would probably be the sweet spot for doc work for me. 2.8 and shallower is tough to keep live action in focus
 
puredrifting said:
Not even close. I have the EF 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 STM IS. On the C200 and the 300 MKII, it vignettes like crazy, so much that I can even see the edge of the frame go to black outside the imaging area.
It's not sharp and the colors are meh. I would hope that a $4,600 lens and a $300.00 kit lens would have a lot of image quality differences.
Click to expand...

This is good to know, I just thought there might be a free lunch somewhere in the range but I’m getting confused with comparing stuff to older b4 zooms... yes the 70-200 is magic and that’s what I want at the wide instead of my 17-55 softness... I have the Zeiss Zf 35 and 85 for sit down interviews if there’s time and you can easily see the sensor of the C100 is not resolved by the 17-55, I wish there was an L version of it .
 
The 18-80 is totally underpriced if you factor in its AF and IS, which quite possibly none of its competitors have. It would be a fine price and very competitive even without those features. And it seems like a sharp, well-controlled, parfocal zoom.

T4.4 is only an issue for verite shooting IMO because you can run into some really dark situations. Of course, verite is also a major type of shooting that I'd want a zoom for. And of course, you'll never get super shallow DOF with it.

My only issue with the IQ is I'm not in love with the OOF rendering, where IMO it still looks like a zoom. But I'm not sure you'd get a better performance from any other cinema zoom at the price point (although it's possible that some stills zooms outperform it in this area). Of course, my evaluation of the OOF is totally subjective
Screenshot_20200906-070710_YouTube.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top