Run&Gun
Veteran
About 30 years ago or so, one of the consumer manufacturers, I believe JVC, had something very similar, with a small camera on the top handle of the main camcorder.
C300: C300MKIII: Yet another lens thread...
- Thread starter seanarmada
- Start date
About 30 years ago or so, one of the consumer manufacturers, I believe JVC, had something very similar, with a small camera on the top handle of the main camcorder.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Gotcha. I thought you were going somewhere else with your post. Then your only real option is to get a decent "video" zoom, if you want/need one.
seanarmada
Well-known member
So, I thought I would stir the pot on this thread.
I decided to rent the 18-80 t4.4 for a shoot this past weekend. I was out in the bush filming a hunt, so lots of run and gun mixed with long stretches of minimal movement, also filming very early in the morning and later in the evening. I used it handheld/cradled, shoulder mount style, and also with my easy rig...
PROS
- The image quality is really sharp/clean. There's no question it's a step up from the 17-55.
- The t4.4 is more versatile than I would have guessed re: lighting conditions. It's not super fast but it lets in a lot more light than what I assumed.
- Focusing manually is really a pleasure - its dampened perfectly and the focus throw is a perfect amount for documentary work.
- For its size the weight is extremely reasonable. Again I see the wisdom in not making this lens faster/bulkier.
- I've always struggled with a shoulder mount setup that I truly enjoy with the C300 form factor. I have to admit the 18-80mm does the trick, being able to have one hand on the zoom rocker grip and another focusing is really nice. Aside from my zacuto shoulder pad/baseplate not much else is needed. I don't like overly rigged/fussy shoulder mount setups.
CONS
- The image is really sharp but also clinical. The 17-55 isn't oozing with character but shooting at f2.8 in the right way I'm able to achieve really beautiful results. The 18-80mm is a workhorse, and for some people that matters more than "character", so take this one with a grain of salt.
- The difference between t4.4 and f2.8 isn't as massive as I would have thought, but it does matter. Again for some people this won't matter, but I'm often shooting at various times of the day, and as the sun starts to set (at least here in Canada) that f2.8 gives me an extra 30-45 minutes of usable shooting before I need to switch to a prime.
- I have to admit the manual iris control isn't ideal for the way I shoot. I kept accidentally adjusting it when trying to move between zooming and focusing, so I'd be mid way through a shot and suddenly it'd be t10. This kept happening over and over. I'm sure with time you learn to avoid doing this though.
- It's large enough that I can see it being tough to use in certain documentary situations, i.e. I find I'm often filming with people in their cars. The 17-55 is just the right size for this kind of work.
- The zoom rocker is nice, although the sound is annoying. On the hunt we were in very quiet environments in the forest, and everyone could hear the sound of the zoom. The sound guy darted a few glances at me at one point, haha.
- The distance between the zoom rocker grip and the standard c300 grip isn't ideal. They're super close to one another so my hand only has so much room to fit in, and yet its a hassle to take my hand out of the zoom rocker grip and back to the main grip mid shot to adjust ISO etc.
Overall for me this feels more like a rental lens. It's great and there are scenarios where I'd prefer it over the 17-55 for sure, but thinking about the various situations I film in, I still haven't found a viable alternative to the 17-55. For all of its faults its still a great mix of size, focal range, speed, image quality.
I decided to rent the 18-80 t4.4 for a shoot this past weekend. I was out in the bush filming a hunt, so lots of run and gun mixed with long stretches of minimal movement, also filming very early in the morning and later in the evening. I used it handheld/cradled, shoulder mount style, and also with my easy rig...
PROS
- The image quality is really sharp/clean. There's no question it's a step up from the 17-55.
- The t4.4 is more versatile than I would have guessed re: lighting conditions. It's not super fast but it lets in a lot more light than what I assumed.
- Focusing manually is really a pleasure - its dampened perfectly and the focus throw is a perfect amount for documentary work.
- For its size the weight is extremely reasonable. Again I see the wisdom in not making this lens faster/bulkier.
- I've always struggled with a shoulder mount setup that I truly enjoy with the C300 form factor. I have to admit the 18-80mm does the trick, being able to have one hand on the zoom rocker grip and another focusing is really nice. Aside from my zacuto shoulder pad/baseplate not much else is needed. I don't like overly rigged/fussy shoulder mount setups.
CONS
- The image is really sharp but also clinical. The 17-55 isn't oozing with character but shooting at f2.8 in the right way I'm able to achieve really beautiful results. The 18-80mm is a workhorse, and for some people that matters more than "character", so take this one with a grain of salt.
- The difference between t4.4 and f2.8 isn't as massive as I would have thought, but it does matter. Again for some people this won't matter, but I'm often shooting at various times of the day, and as the sun starts to set (at least here in Canada) that f2.8 gives me an extra 30-45 minutes of usable shooting before I need to switch to a prime.
- I have to admit the manual iris control isn't ideal for the way I shoot. I kept accidentally adjusting it when trying to move between zooming and focusing, so I'd be mid way through a shot and suddenly it'd be t10. This kept happening over and over. I'm sure with time you learn to avoid doing this though.
- It's large enough that I can see it being tough to use in certain documentary situations, i.e. I find I'm often filming with people in their cars. The 17-55 is just the right size for this kind of work.
- The zoom rocker is nice, although the sound is annoying. On the hunt we were in very quiet environments in the forest, and everyone could hear the sound of the zoom. The sound guy darted a few glances at me at one point, haha.
- The distance between the zoom rocker grip and the standard c300 grip isn't ideal. They're super close to one another so my hand only has so much room to fit in, and yet its a hassle to take my hand out of the zoom rocker grip and back to the main grip mid shot to adjust ISO etc.
Overall for me this feels more like a rental lens. It's great and there are scenarios where I'd prefer it over the 17-55 for sure, but thinking about the various situations I film in, I still haven't found a viable alternative to the 17-55. For all of its faults its still a great mix of size, focal range, speed, image quality.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The best alternative may be C70 + speedbooster + 24-70 or 24-105.
seanarmada
Well-known member
I was thinking about that also.. I have no idea if they'll be offering an RF mount for the C300MK3 that you can switch and replace like with PL and EF lock. Being able to use that and a speedbooster is basically a perfect solution if you don't want to use larger, heavier cine glass.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
This is an old video of my setup with the 18-80 such that you can have your hand on the C300 grip and the 18-80 grip at the same time when doing shoulder mount. I've improved the setup since then with Shape handles, Wooden Camera relocator, C200 monitor, VCT Pro plate, etc., but this gets the idea across.
That’s pretty nifty. Going to have to get some parts to do that.
seanarmada
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this, nice setup!
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
It's a nice idea but that would have to maybe be a C300 Mark IV in a couple years. C300 III isn't built for an RF mount as I understand, interchangeable mounts or not.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yeah, RF mount on the current 300/III isn't gonna happen. At the very least, there's not enough space with the ND to get far enough back. I believe they said they had to re-design the ND system to work with shallow depth of the RF mount on the C70.
chris f
Veteran
This is a good assessment, although I'd say the IQ of the 17-55 is a little lacking especially when it comes to vignetting and fringing on hard edges. I rented the 18-80 once again for a live performance that I was shooting hand held and man is it hard to beat when it comes to performance & versatility. IQ & autofocus and image stabilization performance is so good. Definitely has the best IS out of any Canon lens IMHO. Yes at T4.4 it's lacking that wow factor, but with a good color grade it can add some back in. I'll be doing the same shoot next month and am going to add Black Promist 1/8 filter to it and see if that can add a little more wow back into the image as well.
I posted some frame grabs from the show on my instagram if you want to check them out: https://www.instagram.com/p/CG6Vs4Jjwe_/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
Images 1,2,4,7,8,9 are from the C300MKIII + 18-80
Image 3 is C200 + Sigma Art 18-35 1.8
Image 5,6 are C200 + Tokina 24-70 2.8
That being said, this lens is right up there with a better tripod.....might just be a rental as needed item cause man is it hard to spend that much money on something that utilitarian and doesn't get you excited. If Canon could get the 18-80 a little faster OR make a new version of the 17-55 that's more video friendly, that would be the perfect lens.
rob norton
Veteran
Great stuff Chris. The 18-80 should be more appealing now that you've got a c300iii with its more usable higher ISOs. What ISO do you think is a loose rule for interiros with the 18-80 - with/without NR?
seanarmada
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing these man.. I'll echo the others, very nice frames!
I'm still pretty tempted by the 18-80, it really is hard to beat... I had a bunch of VISA travel points lying around and decided to convert them into Best Buy certificates, and ended up putting them towards a new 17-55, which worked out quite cheap in the end (about $400 CAD, or $300 USD probably). I get the feeling there's some variation from copy to copy, this one is WAY better than my older copy: the focus and zoom rings are much smoother, it feels like the image is a bit sharper overall, the flaring even looks nicer.. Its possible my older one is just dinged up but it almost feels like a semi-upgrade.
If they announced a CN-E variation of the 17-55 I'd buy it in a heartbeat. No chance of that happening I bet though...
puredrifting
Major Contributor
FWIW, I just bought DVXUser Chris Albert's CNE 18-80mm t/4.4 for a very good price. I've been out of town for two weeks on live streams out of state so haven't had a chance to shoot with it yet,
but I've shot half a dozen projects with this lens over the past few years. It's a very unique, special lens, there really isn't much else like it on the market. Such a great all arounder for those of
us who use Canon S35 cameras. Glad I finally have one, I've wanted it since I reviewed a prototype four years ago and have been waiting for a good, clean used copy to pop up for sale. It finally did.
True to my signature, this lens will make me money, I should have it paid off in day rate rentals by January or February, then it will become a profit center. I have three regular clients who specifically have asked for servo moves
and unless I had one rented, I wasn't able to do those kinds of moves with a still lens.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I've not shot with the C300 MKIII yet but our EF S 17-55 f/2.8 IS on our c200 is a hot mess, vignetting and soft corners. Usable but just barely.
seanarmada
Well-known member
Just looked up the original post.. Nice find! It seems they don't really pop up on the used market much, which is probably a good sign.
Stills2HDConvert
Well-known member
The sensor size doesn't matter. What matters is the effective pixel dimensions. The height of the C200 and C300 Mark III sensors are the same. And they have same number of effective pixels in that dimension.
Unless the pixel size is different on the C300 Mark III and the C200, they will have the same exact image circle, since they have the same exact effective pixel dimensions and vertical dimension.
We don't know what they're doing with those non effective area pixels, but the image circle stays the same. It's simple grade school geometry.
Stills2HDConvert
Well-known member
I'm assuming you have peripheral illumination turned on.
Is it bare or do you have a UV filter?
If you have a filter have you heard of any luck with step up rings?