C300: C300MKIII: Yet another lens thread...

Just to pile onto the 18-80 conversation further... Brett Ramsey posted a few 18-80 tests on Vimeo a few years back, which I remember seeing posted about on here.. Anyways, this one in particular caught my attention:

https://vimeo.com/164041282

Assuming nothing changed in the lighting from the two shots that's a VERY noticeable difference in exposure vs the 24-105. I feel like T4.4/F4 on paper isn't telling the whole story here, it's noticeably brighter vs. the 24-105 at f4 wide open. On top of that the skin tones look pretty fantastic, it didn't quite hit me until I checked out Brett's test videos...
 
That was tested with the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS, it was before they introduced the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II, which I believe most reviewers said Canon improved this exposure phenomena but I never compared them side by side to benchmark that.
 
seanarmada said:
Just to pile onto the 18-80 conversation further... Brett Ramsey posted a few 18-80 tests on Vimeo a few years back, which I remember seeing posted about on here.. Anyways, this one in particular caught my attention:

https://vimeo.com/164041282

Assuming nothing changed in the lighting from the two shots that's a VERY noticeable difference in exposure vs the 24-105. I feel like T4.4/F4 on paper isn't telling the whole story here, it's noticeably brighter vs. the 24-105 at f4 wide open. On top of that the skin tones look pretty fantastic, it didn't quite hit me until I checked out Brett's test videos...
Click to expand...

I worked on that shoot as DP. Nothing changed in the lighting between the two shots.

Other samples are here (not comparisons). I also did my own focus breathing comparison vs L zooms (16-35 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8 II, and 70-200 f/2.8 II).

The 18-80 is wonderful and has its own mojo. If the T4.4 and the barrel distortion on the wide end are not an issue for you then it's a superb lens.
 
Last edited:
I know it's a different mount, but does anyone have an opinion on how the Sony PZ 18-110 and 28-135 compare to the Canon 18-80?

I haven't dug deep, but my impression is that the sony optics and servos are inferior in this case
 
One last thought i have which probably wont get any love here - you may be able to level the playing field a bit between stills and cine zooms on an AF camera if the camera will readjust focus for you as you zoom.

Then, you could use a motor hooked up to the zoom ring if you throw a gear on the ring. Either a rocker control or a wheel.

The optics/breathing may still lag the cine zoom (or not) but you might be able to do servo zoom moves with faux-parfocal (parfauxcal) effect, and do them with all your stills lenses.

If I could pull that off with the sigma 24-70 and 70-200 I'm considering in e-mount (approx $2500 combined) I'd be a very happy man.

If the AF works well enough, I was considering switching the focus motor on my Ronin-S over to the zoom ring of the 24-70 and doing just what I'm describing. I got a pretty decent result doing this on the Lumix 24-105 when I was asked to pull off some zooms on a narrative shoot.

No, it still won't be as good. But it might be close enough to merit saving $7k on 2 FF lenses vs the S35 cine 18-80 and 70-200. And the sigmas are beautiful and f/2.8. No interest to people who really need a workhorse zoom, but I'm curious to see how this shakes out in practice
 
ahalpert said:
One last thought i have which probably wont get any love here - you may be able to level the playing field a bit between stills and cine zooms on an AF camera if the camera will readjust focus for you as you zoom.

Then, you could use a motor hooked up to the zoom ring if you throw a gear on the ring. Either a rocker control or a wheel.

The optics/breathing may still lag the cine zoom (or not) but you might be able to do servo zoom moves with faux-parfocal (parfauxcal) effect, and do them with all your stills lenses.

If I could pull that off with the sigma 24-70 and 70-200 I'm considering in e-mount (approx $2500 combined) I'd be a very happy man.

If the AF works well enough, I was considering switching the focus motor on my Ronin-S over to the zoom ring of the 24-70 and doing just what I'm describing. I got a pretty decent result doing this on the Lumix 24-105 when I was asked to pull off some zooms on a narrative shoot.

No, it still won't be as good. But it might be close enough to merit saving $7k on 2 FF lenses vs the S35 cine 18-80 and 70-200. And the sigmas are beautiful and f/2.8. No interest to people who really need a workhorse zoom, but I'm curious to see how this shakes out in practice
Click to expand...

When you read reviews on still zooms, you often see the reviewer talking about barrel or pincushion distortion at different focal lengths and a lot of times it varies back and forth between barrel and pincushion. You don't want to see the image doing some weird, funky pumping, if the distortion is bad enough, while doing a "live zoom".
 
Run&Gun said:
When you read reviews on still zooms, you often see the reviewer talking about barrel or pincushion distortion at different focal lengths and a lot of times it varies back and forth between barrel and pincushion. You don't want to see the image doing some weird, funky pumping, if the distortion is bad enough, while doing a "live zoom".
Click to expand...

Every zoom has the potential for variable distortion

"We shot the Canon 18-80 against a resolution chart to see if there is any distortion on the geometry of the image. At 35mm, there is a slight amount of pincushioning, more so on the horizontal than on the vertical. You can also see how the lens renders vertical and horizontal lines at 18mm in the interview frame. You can definitely see some distortion of the image at the wide end, with the windows bowing outwards and the vertical columns showing some bending."

Sigma 24-70:
"The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art produces moderate barrel distortion at 24mm, transitioning to pincushion at 50mm and beyond. The degree of distortion is enough to be visible when shooting geometric subjects, but is only obvious at 24mm"
 
The 24-105 changes transmission when you zoom, especially if the lens isn't wide open. It happens on both the version I and version II. Actually, it happens on the 24-70 and the 16-35 as well. It's a pain to shoot with any of the Canon photo zooms (except the 70-200) if you aren't trying to use the lenses wide open. Admittedly, that is how most people use the lenses.

I've put a zoom gear on my 70-200 f/2.8 and gotten pretty good results when shooting events. The other lenses are harder to work with because they aren't internal zooms and the friction is much higher.
 
These optical issues in zooms come down to one thing: price v performance. For all the people wondering why a cine zoom might cost $10K or $30K or $80K, this is the chief reason. Want a decent starter zoom? Try a Fuji 18-55 ($3500), but recognize that it can only do so much. Want some higher performance but still on a budget? Try a Fuji 20-120 ($10K) which can do much more but still has certain limitations. Need a higher performance zoom but still a workhorse? There's the 19-90 ($30K) but even it can do a lot but is not absolutely optically perfect. So you want an uncompromising piece of cinema glass that performs as well as the finest primes? Sure there's the Fujinon Premier 18-85 T2 ($87K), and it's magnificent but also quite hefty in price, weight & size.

Anyone who argues that there are stills lenses that are "just as good" has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. That's not to say that those lenses don't have their place, but there are huge differences across multiple parameters.
 
I don't think anyone is saying that stills lenses are just as good. It's just a question of total budget and opportunity cost. and bearable weight.

I dont need a workhorse ENG lens. I mostly use zooms like variable primes. If I could achieve smooth, controlled zooms with constant focus on my stills zooms, it would go a long, long way to overcoming my issues with them for zooming.

Just because something is called a cinema lens doesn't mean that it magically fixes all those issues, just that they tried to.

And if you're looking for full-frame cinema zooms, there's like the sony 28-135 for $2500 and it's soft, not that pretty, and doesn't zoom that smoothly. Then there's a couple Angenieux S35 zooms with optical adapters for $14k. Then up above $20k and there's not many options.

Dxomark measures transmission at various focal lengths for zooms. Some stills lenses are more consistent than others.

And for most cinema zooms - forget about autofocus. certainly for the best ones.

Beyond variable transmission, distortion, focus distance, and breathing what do people think are other noticeable optical variations across focal lengths that cinema zooms try to correct?
 
Last edited:
Anybody running the CN-E 70-200 T/4.4?

The 18-80 has turned out to be an extraordinary lens for my purposes, and I now have a wandering eye for the 70-200. Could be a great combo for virtually any documentary, so long as you throw 1-2 fast primes in the bag for interviews & darker scenes.

Thoughts?
 
dipstik said:
Anybody running the CN-E 70-200 T/4.4?

The 18-80 has turned out to be an extraordinary lens for my purposes, and I now have a wandering eye for the 70-200. Could be a great combo for virtually any documentary, so long as you throw 1-2 fast primes in the bag for interviews & darker scenes.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't own one, but have a client with one that I've used a few times and used one a few times on a reality show a few months ago. It's just basically a longer(focal length) version of the 18-80. It is nicer/easier to use than the typical stills version 70-200 2.8 that everyone owns, just slower. Gaining a real aperture ring and parfocality is almost worth the loss in speed. On paper, it's boring as can be, but in reality, it does a good job and makes your life (much) easier, compared to shooting with a stills version(unless you need f/2.8)(I know they make an f/4 stills version, too, but I'd never waste my money on it).
 
Run&Gun said:
(I know they make an f/4 stills version, too, but I'd never waste my money on it).
Click to expand...

I also shoot documentary and sold my 70-200 2.8 II and replaced it with the 70-200 4 II. It's a very new design (released after the cine zoom) and has excellent build and image quality. My reason for changing - it's half the weight / volume of the 2.8 and at the longer focal lengths f4 provided plenty of separation. For me the 2.8 was a pig to carry when I often didn't end up using it.

Of course it depends how much you work at that end of focal range - for me I find the 18-80 covers 80% of shots, it's more at the wide end that I need to switch (to a Tokina 11-20), with only a handful of shots ever needing that extra reach. If you need the long end more perhaps the CN-E lens is worth it for the extra features.

I also take a couple of primes along on a shoot (usually a 28/50 combo) but the 18-80 is so versatile they often aren't used.
 
lacuna said:
I also shoot documentary and sold my 70-200 2.8 II and replaced it with the 70-200 4 II. It's a very new design (released after the cine zoom) and has excellent build and image quality. My reason for changing - it's half the weight / volume of the 2.8 and at the longer focal lengths f4 provided plenty of separation. For me the 2.8 was a pig to carry when I often didn't end up using it.

Of course it depends how much you work at that end of focal range - for me I find the 18-80 covers 80% of shots, it's more at the wide end that I need to switch (to a Tokina 11-20), with only a handful of shots ever needing that extra reach. If you need the long end more perhaps the CN-E lens is worth it for the extra features.

I also take a couple of primes along on a shoot (usually a 28/50 combo) but the 18-80 is so versatile they often aren't used.
Click to expand...

Completely valid. And a LOT of people on this forum place small size and light weight high up on their list of priorities. Me, not so much. I come from a broadcast TV background, so I've literally spent over half of my life running around with "big a s s" cameras and lenses. I'm not hiking up Mt. Everest, so the size/weight savings gained vs giving up a stop are not worth it to me. I know a lot of people own the f/4, but I don't know if I know anyone personally that owns one. Everyone I shoot with has the 2.8.

If I didn't own the 17-120, the 18-80 would be very tempting, but it just doesn't have enough reach to be a "one lens" lens(although it would be good for grabbing sound/off-the-shoulder interviews with). And 18 isn't really wide enough to give you that scene setter, either(and neither is 17). It's just so hard in s35 to have just one lens to cover you for everything. In 2/3" we have our 13x/14x W/A that are equivalent to ~11/12-150(plus 2x). On my Vari's, they stayed on probably 95%+ of the time. I could go months and months without ever taking one off, except for shipping. I think in s35, you'd need the 18-80, 70-200, a wide prime or wide zoom and then at least two-three T1.2-ish primes for interviews(although my fave int lens is my 135 T2.2, but I'm still wanting the Sigma 105 T1.5).

Scene Setter/Scenics: Something like the 11-20
Meat & Potatoes: 18-80 & 70-200
Pretty Interviews: 35, 50 & 85 T1.2-T1.5

That would cover most peoples scenarios, outside of wildlife and some sports.
 
Going down a rabbit hole I never intended...

A lot of people like doing the "2.8 trinity": 16-35, 24-70 & 70-200.

I've never owned a 24-70, because it seems so limited to me, especially on s35. The 24-105 has a much more useful range, despite it's other shortcomings, so I'd go:
16-35/2.8, 24-105/4 & 70-200/2.8
OR
16.35/2.8, 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6

The 24-105 is slow and ramps(at least the old version ramps), but it's gonna prevent a lot of lens changes where you need more than 70 and need wider than 70. And you need that a LOT.
 
Run&Gun said:
Going down a rabbit hole I never intended...

A lot of people like doing the "2.8 trinity": 16-35, 24-70 & 70-200.

I've never owned a 24-70, because it seems so limited to me, especially on s35. The 24-105 has a much more useful range, despite it's other shortcomings, so I'd go:
16-35/2.8, 24-105/4 & 70-200/2.8
OR
16.35/2.8, 24-105/4 & 100-400/4.5-5.6

The 24-105 is slow and ramps(at least the old version ramps), but it's gonna prevent a lot of lens changes where you need more than 70 and need wider than 70. And you need that a LOT.
Click to expand...

I imagine something like a canon cn-e 16-50mm t2.95 would sell a lot. How big could it be? I'd like to pick up the 18-80 at some point but haven't had a big enough reason yet.
 
dipstik said:
Anybody running the CN-E 70-200 T/4.4?

The 18-80 has turned out to be an extraordinary lens for my purposes, and I now have a wandering eye for the 70-200. Could be a great combo for virtually any documentary, so long as you throw 1-2 fast primes in the bag for interviews & darker scenes.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Having used it and my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I prefer the still lens. It's faster, cheaper, just as sharp IMHO and I simply don't need servo zoom at those focal lengths. YMMV. I much prefer the CN E 18-80 t/4.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top