C300: C300MKIII: Yet another lens thread...

[ahalpert]

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.

Right - Fuji has the 18-55 T2.9 for $4k at 2.2lbs 8". And they make a 16-55 f/2.8 for stills and Canon makes a 17-55 f/2.8 for APS-C.

But it all depends on what you're shooting right? Those lenses would be useless if you suddenly need to punch in from a distance.

Has anyone here considered having a 2nd body with a wide-angle on it? You could have an A7SIII with a UWA prime or zoom hanging on your shoulder or in a side pouch. Then you could use a normal-to-telephoto zoom on your primary camera and whip out the wide-angle body when needed. It would take pressure off the design of your zoom lens, and a wide-angle doesn't need to be on a tripod as badly. The Laowa 25-100 T2.9 could be the zoom.

If I'm covering an exterior event (like speeches and a crowd) and I need to get b-roll in a hurry, I grab my tamron 18-270. (Now they make a 16-300.) It's f/3.5-6.3 and the zoom mechanics are horrible, but it's optically decent and gives me unbeatable speed and reach. That's probably the closest situation I have to shooting broadcast journalism.

The last shoot I did was FS7 + speedbooster + 70-200 for interviews and then I ended up staying on that lens for all my office signage/computer/walk-and-talk b-roll until my very last exteriors of the building when I switched to a 24-70. Of course, a FF 70-200 roughly equates to the S35 Fuji MK 50-135.

But I think that for short-range doc shooting (like following a subject around their apartment) a 16-50 could be perfect.

I just bought a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 to go with A7SIII on gimbal, but I need it mostly for beauty b-roll. I even considered getting a 50 1.4 for that purpose instead. I considered the sony 24-105 but it wasn't as pretty as the sigma. And if I'm in a stationary setting, I like to have a 70-200 on another camera on tripod at the ready to switch off with the gimbal.

If I needed a S35 servo zoom, I think I would get the canon 18-80. Sony makes a pz S35 18-110 and a FF 28-135 but...they dont seem as good optically or mechanically as the Canon 18-80.

I almost wish I were on a Canon just to get an 18-80 and have access to its AF. But ultimately the Sonys offer me the best bang for the buck and I'm trying to spend less on gear, not more.

Maybe in the future. If their R6 worked without overheating, I could have used the 18-80 on that and bought it with the money saved by buying such a cheap camera.

The 17-120 seems like one of the best all-in-one lenses around. Although it's $24k and lacks the AF/IS of the 18-80

 

[Run&Gun]

The 17-120 seems like one of the best all-in-one lenses around. Although it's $24k and lacks the AF/IS of the 18-80

Actually, the 17-120(w/EF mount) is capable of AF. I tried it out on a clients C300/II with my 17-120, and it was kind of cool to see the large focus barrel spinning around “on its own”. Ultimately I wasn’t overly impressed with the results, but that was because of the rather weak/limited AF system of the 300/II and not the lens.

The 25-250 is capable of AF, as well. But I do not know about the 50-1000. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone mention it, but it does have the same basic operational design as its two little brothers.

 

[laverdir]

Ultimately I wasn’t overly impressed with the results, but that was because of the rather weak/limited AF system of the 300/II and not the lens.

DPAF system on C series is highly tuneable and can be adapted to quite a broad range of situations, if the scene isn't under/over exposed.

There are problems with tracking smooth objects without features or highly reflective objects that create flares by focusing reflected light source directly on the sensor.

Which problems regarding the performance of AF system did you experienced?

 

[digitalinnovations]

...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...

...It's just so hard in s35 to have just one lens to cover you for everything...

It sounds like we have similar backgrounds when it comes to gear and whatnot. The only thing I think is more difficult is trying to find a “oner” lens for full-frame sensors. In another thread someone said that there probably aren’t any C500 MkII owners who wish they hadn’t purchased it...but I think I may be one. Between the lenses and a couple of other things I think I may have a few pangs

 

[ahalpert]

It sounds like we have similar backgrounds when it comes to gear and whatnot. The only thing I think is more difficult is trying to find a “oner” lens for full-frame sensors. In another thread someone said that there probably aren’t any C500 MkII owners who wish they hadn’t purchased it...but I think I may be one. Between the lenses and a couple of other things I think I may have a few pangs

Sony makes the 28-135...but it's not awesome and it's E mount

 

[rob norton]

Right - Fuji has the 18-55 T2.9 for $4k at 2.2lbs 8". And they make a 16-55 f/2.8 for stills and Canon makes a 17-55 f/2.8 for APS-C.

But it all depends on what you're shooting right? Those lenses would be useless if you suddenly need to punch in from a distance.

Has anyone here considered having a 2nd body with a wide-angle on it? You could have an A7SIII with a UWA prime or zoom hanging on your shoulder or in a side pouch. Then you could use a normal-to-telephoto zoom on your primary camera and whip out the wide-angle body when needed. It would take pressure off the design of your zoom lens, and a wide-angle doesn't need to be on a tripod as badly. The Laowa 25-100 T2.9 could be the zoom.

If I'm covering an exterior event (like speeches and a crowd) and I need to get b-roll in a hurry, I grab my tamron 18-270. (Now they make a 16-300.) It's f/3.5-6.3 and the zoom mechanics are horrible, but it's optically decent and gives me unbeatable speed and reach. That's probably the closest situation I have to shooting broadcast journalism.

The last shoot I did was FS7 + speedbooster + 70-200 for interviews and then I ended up staying on that lens for all my office signage/computer/walk-and-talk b-roll until my very last exteriors of the building when I switched to a 24-70. Of course, a FF 70-200 roughly equates to the S35 Fuji MK 50-135.

But I think that for short-range doc shooting (like following a subject around their apartment) a 16-50 could be perfect.

A second body could work, it'd just be a trade off like anything else. Mostly just carrying more and adding another card or set of cards, which won't work for everyone.

I shoot stills on the ricoh gr ii (awesome camera). It's got a fixed lens prime and retracts to about the size of a deck of cards. I thought it'd be cool having 1-3 of these smaller bricks when travelling vs. carrying cylindrical lenses. For the a7s iii as a second body, you could probably go a wide prime so it's more manageable then have the 24-70 on your main cam for a pretty good range with even faster lenses than an all in one system.

The main reason I haven't picked up an 18-80 is the type of shoots I'd use it on the most are the least likely to pay a higher day rate.

I think it comes down to having access to as many different lenses as possible!

 

[morgan_moore]

Actually, the 17-120(w/EF mount) is capable of AF. I tried it out on a clients C300/II with my 17-120, and it was kind of cool to see the large focus barrel spinning around “on its own”.

Ive always wondered - does it have internal (or built into the zoom handle) af motor or do you need to add a focus motor that is driven by the camera?

 

[digitalinnovations]

Ive always wondered - does it have internal (or built into the zoom handle) af motor or do you need to add a focus motor that is driven by the camera?

I believe it uses the servo motor for AF.

 

[puredrifting]

A second body could work, it'd just be a trade off like anything else. Mostly just carrying more and adding another card or set of cards, which won't work for everyone.

I shoot stills on the ricoh gr ii (awesome camera). It's got a fixed lens prime and retracts to about the size of a deck of cards. I thought it'd be cool having 1-3 of these smaller bricks when travelling vs. carrying cylindrical lenses. For the a7s iii as a second body, you could probably go a wide prime so it's more manageable then have the 24-70 on your main cam for a pretty good range with even faster lenses than an all in one system.

The main reason I haven't picked up an 18-80 is the type of shoots I'd use it on the most are the least likely to pay a higher day rate.

I think it comes down to having access to as many different lenses as possible!

Interesting point Rob. For the five camera corporate shoot where I rented the two CN E 18-80 t/4.4 lenses a few weeks ago, when we blocked and rehearsed, the director specifically asked for some slow, smooth zooms for segments
where we were rolling in pre-records into the live stream. Our show was emulating The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and when that show comes back from commercial or throws to commercial with Fallon, the director often will
have their camera operator do a slow, smooth zoom in or out on Fallon. It's funny the amount of people here and on other boards who say, "Why do you care if your lens can do a smooth zoom, WHO would ever use the footage
captured while zooming?" I find some directors request this now, I've had it at trade shows where the director is in my headset asking for a "slow smooth zoom in or out".

Our talent walked onto set through a set of swinging doors built especially for our set and the director also wanted to start on a wide on our A camera, then have the camera
follow the talent as he took off a coat and hun it on a coat rack, then he headed to his chair at a desk, all the time slowly zooming in as the "band" of camera played him into the set.
As I was panning and slow zooming in on him, the director than cut to my B camera that was already framed for talent entering frame, then
sitting down at the desk. I told the producer that in order to obtain those slow, smooth zooms, that would require me to rent those lenses.
I charged the production $75.00 per day, per lens and he was fine with that. The rental company made me a deal to where I actually made some
nice profit on the five day rental too.

I've also found shooting documentaries, where stuff. movement and conversations are happening in real time and we are covering with only a single camera, I must often reframe as I am rolling and since it's one camera in many cases, there
isn't a cutaway angle so I must smoothly reframe if the talent begins having conversation with a second or third person. A servo zoom is indispensible in these sorts of situations. Same with reality TV, weddings, event work. Like the aesthetic or not, sometimes
you have to zoom to reframe and in certain situations where the footage with the zoom will be used. And sometimes clients are trying to emulate a look and feel that has used zooms like late night talk shows. For me, when I can afford it, i think picking up
a CN E 18-80mm would pay off faily quickly.

 

[ahalpert]

There's no doubt that it's always better to be on a zoom that can zoom smoothly and parfocally versus one that can't.

Many of my clients specifically ask me not to take zoom shots. But it's true that when you have to zoom to reframe, it would be good if you didnt absolutely have to force a cut. (As an aside - you never truly need to zoom during weddings. I could shoot the whole day with primes.)

In my particular work, the 2 places a proper servo zoom would be handy are for livestreaming (typically single camera on my 70-200) and interviews (if I need to reframe during the interview).

The 2 reasons that have kept me from buying such a zoom are first of all cost relative to need (plus opportunity cost of what I could buy instead). And second, it's questionable if I would deliver a better product with such a zoom if my shot would look better (sharper, better rendering, shallower DOF, better OOF/bokeh) with the stills lens (either a prime or an f/2.8 FF zoom) or a cinema prime or short zoom. If i dont have a director requesting a zoom shot, it's not a total win to use the proper zoom.

If I had a different clientele, I would certainly need one. And if the 18-80 were $1k, I would buy it without a 2nd thought.

But having looked into the matter while reading this thread, I think that if I needed to buy a proper zoom even for my sony cameras, I would buy the canon 18-80 because it's the best all-in-one in the price tier. Or I would buy the Laowa 25-100 if I could get away with a zoom that didnt go wide.

If I needed to buy a FF servo zoom, I'd have to buy the sony 28-135 or maybe the angenieux 30-90 with the FF rear element group, but that's way more expensive and sacrifices even more wide-angle. All the other zooms available make you appreciate what the 18-80 can do.

There's gotta be more FF cine zooms coming down the pike...

 

[Run&Gun]

Ive always wondered - does it have internal (or built into the zoom handle) af motor or do you need to add a focus motor that is driven by the camera?

All three servos(focus, iris and zoom) are housed inside the (removable) grip. There is an individual switch for each that engages and disengages them. Another nice thing with having them all built-in, is that you can just interface with the grip and plug in your external controllers, with the proper cables. No need for external “FIZ” motors and control boxes.

 

[Run&Gun]

There's no doubt that it's always better to be on a zoom that can zoom smoothly and parfocally versus one that can't.

Many of my clients specifically ask me not to take zoom shots. But it's true that when you have to zoom to reframe, it would be good if you didnt absolutely have to force a cut. (As an aside - you never truly need to zoom during weddings. I could shoot the whole day with primes.)

In my particular work, the 2 places a proper servo zoom would be handy are for livestreaming (typically single camera on my 70-200) and interviews (if I need to reframe during the interview).

The 2 reasons that have kept me from buying such a zoom are first of all cost relative to need (plus opportunity cost of what I could buy instead). And second, it's questionable if I would deliver a better product with such a zoom if my shot would look better (sharper, better rendering, shallower DOF, better OOF/bokeh) with the stills lens (either a prime or an f/2.8 FF zoom) or a cinema prime or short zoom. If i dont have a director requesting a zoom shot, it's not a total win to use the proper zoom.

If I had a different clientele, I would certainly need one. And if the 18-80 were $1k, I would buy it without a 2nd thought.

But having looked into the matter while reading this thread, I think that if I needed to buy a proper zoom even for my sony cameras, I would buy the canon 18-80 because it's the best all-in-one in the price tier. Or I would buy the Laowa 25-100 if I could get away with a zoom that didnt go wide.

If I needed to buy a FF servo zoom, I'd have to buy the sony 28-135 or maybe the angenieux 30-90 with the FF rear element group, but that's way more expensive and sacrifices even more wide-angle. All the other zooms available make you appreciate what the 18-80 can do.

There's gotta be more FF cine zooms coming down the pike...

It’s not always about being able to or needing to do a “live/on-air zoom”. People have been shooting with zooms as “variable primes” forever, because it’s also about speed and efficiency and sometimes tweaking the framing, just a tick. Even if you carry two cameras around your neck with a different prime on each, you still can’t change as fast as a zoom that covers the same focal lengths.

 

[morgan_moore]

Some thing Ive suggested before is sony integrate thier RX0 into or ontop of the fx/fs (?) This has a FF20mm (15S35) FOV or something and could be attached to a sony camera to roll and go into the EVF when a button was pressed - could even write to the main card.

WIth that the 20(s-35)-xx lenses would gain more attention.

 

[ahalpert]

It’s not always about being able to or needing to do a “live/on-air zoom”. People have been shooting with zooms as “variable primes” forever, because it’s also about speed and efficiency and sometimes tweaking the framing, just a tick. Even if you carry two cameras around your neck with a different prime on each, you still can’t change as fast as a zoom that covers the same focal lengths.

Right but the instant reframing with a photo zoom is not the problem. I can even use the zooms in the edit if they're abrupt (or from the 70-200 which zooms smoothly). Literally the only issue I have is zoom action and servo smoothness/control.

So basically my only issue with stills zooms is not being able to do an "on-air" zoom

 

[ahalpert]

Some thing Ive suggested before is sony integrate thier RX0 into or ontop of the fx/fs (?) This has a FF20mm (15S35) FOV or something and could be attached to a sony camera to roll and go into the EVF when a button was pressed - could even write to the main card.

WIth that the 20(s-35)-xx lenses would gain more attention.

A bit like multiple sensors and lenses on an iPhone that can record simultaneously. Personally, i think it would be a fine idea to have an UWA available that way even if it's not quite as good as the primary lens/sensor.

 

[morgan_moore]

Like an iphone yes - Id like my camrera to indeed by better than my directors phone - otherwise im fast unemployed then I wont buy anymore big cameras and that hurts the manufacturers.

 

[ahalpert]

It's actually pretty awesome what the iPhone can do... imagine something similar with M43 sensors

 

[morgan_moore]

Its not awesome. Its phone. What is a huge embarrasement is that camera makers struggle to best it when making cameras is thier job.

 

[ahalpert]

I didnt say the iphone is awesome. Having a 3-lens turret simultaneously recording to separate sensors is awesome.

Now put it on a GH5 with good AF and 2x its usual size and the lenses spread in a triangle. You're recording from each constantly and you flick between which one you want to monitor. And maybe with enough resolution you can do a magic zoom from one lens to the next in post. For certain applications, that would be cool

 

[rob norton]

Interesting point Rob. For the five camera corporate shoot where I rented the two CN E 18-80 t/4.4 lenses a few weeks ago, when we blocked and rehearsed, the director specifically asked for some slow, smooth zooms for segments
where we were rolling in pre-records into the live stream. Our show was emulating The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and when that show comes back from commercial or throws to commercial with Fallon, the director often will
have their camera operator do a slow, smooth zoom in or out on Fallon. It's funny the amount of people here and on other boards who say, "Why do you care if your lens can do a smooth zoom, WHO would ever use the footage
captured while zooming?" I find some directors request this now, I've had it at trade shows where the director is in my headset asking for a "slow smooth zoom in or out".

Our talent walked onto set through a set of swinging doors built especially for our set and the director also wanted to start on a wide on our A camera, then have the camera
follow the talent as he took off a coat and hun it on a coat rack, then he headed to his chair at a desk, all the time slowly zooming in as the "band" of camera played him into the set.
As I was panning and slow zooming in on him, the director than cut to my B camera that was already framed for talent entering frame, then
sitting down at the desk. I told the producer that in order to obtain those slow, smooth zooms, that would require me to rent those lenses.
I charged the production $75.00 per day, per lens and he was fine with that. The rental company made me a deal to where I actually made some
nice profit on the five day rental too.

I've also found shooting documentaries, where stuff. movement and conversations are happening in real time and we are covering with only a single camera, I must often reframe as I am rolling and since it's one camera in many cases, there
isn't a cutaway angle so I must smoothly reframe if the talent begins having conversation with a second or third person. A servo zoom is indispensible in these sorts of situations. Same with reality TV, weddings, event work. Like the aesthetic or not, sometimes
you have to zoom to reframe and in certain situations where the footage with the zoom will be used. And sometimes clients are trying to emulate a look and feel that has used zooms like late night talk shows. For me, when I can afford it, i think picking up
a CN E 18-80mm would pay off faily quickly.

They sound like some great shoots to be part of and perfect for the zoom.

Funnily enough, I don't think any of the rental places here have a copy so hiring would only come from a dry hire from a generous owner, which would never be reliable.

I don't mind seeing the lens go from 70 to 24 as a fast pull out (or 35-18 on the sigma). Sometimes seeing the camera operator adjust settings can add a layer of importance to the unfolding action. As in if they're leaving in the camera person's adjustments then it's probably because we can't miss anything from the shot.

Of course this is highly personal and it's a fine line between taking too long or not being the right changes to make. I personally would't mind seeing NDs swing in/out of the way as someone runs inside/outside but I really don't like seeing the slower, stepped iris changes mid shot. Similarly the smooth and slow zoom out on the 18-80 might not sit well with some people (I know you can change zoom speed, just commenting on the aesthetic).

But yes I get your point that there's really no better value or option for some situations - I'm sold on the 18-80 without even touching one.