C200: Canon 17-55 2.8 vs 16-35 2.8

N

nickbeef

Active member
For video work, is there any reason to get the Canon 16-35 2.8 over the 17-55 2.8?

Obvious the range is better on the 17-55 (except for the ever so slightly wider 16mm), and also it has image stabilization, and is cheaper. Then again, the 16-35 has that red ring... um, yeah. Anything else I should be considering? Or just say "screw it" and get the Sigma 18-35 1.4?
 
The 16-35mm is the better glass but is anyone ever going to notice any difference between the two in a video (most likely a compressed video), probably not.

I would get the 18-35mm (which is f/1.8) unless you really need IS.
 
Unless you need the full frame coverage of the 16-35 Canon, I would recommend the 18-35 Sigma Art (it's only $600 refurb on Sigma's website right now btw).
 
I hate the 17-55 2.8. Vignettes way to much on my C200. I only use it on my BMPC now. It's all FF lenses for me.
Other people love the 17-55 2.8.
I personally have moved to using my 17-40 4.0 or 24-105 4.0 version I. Hear the 24-105 II isn't as sharp.
So I'm voting 16-35 since it's FF.
 
Stills2HDConvert - for real? Vignettes on a super35 sensor? Isn't that basically APS-C? I don't doubt you, just surprised, as I'm looking to use it on a C200 as well.
 
I used to own a 16-35. The 16-35 has better seals. The 17-55 is prone to dust entering the lens.
 
nickbeef said:
Stills2HDConvert - for real? Vignettes on a super35 sensor? Isn't that basically APS-C? I don't doubt you, just surprised, as I'm looking to use it on a C200 as well.
Click to expand...
The crop factor of a normal Canon camera is 1.6.
The crop factor of the C200 is 1.5.
The crop factor of the BMPC is 1.7.
Wide open the 17-55 2.8 was awful on my C200.
Even the 10-22 has to be zoomed to get rid of it.
The lenses were designed for a crop factor of 1.6 not 1.5.
It doesn't vignette on my BMPC.
But some don't care, and still like the lens.
 
I have the 17-55 and I just tolerate it. It's usable but not optimum. The AF is slow and clunky, the build quality is mediocre and the IS is gen 1, they've improved it a lot since this lens was engineered. I will likely replace it with the CN-e 18-80 T4.4 in the next six months, a much better and more expensive lens.
 
Stills2HDConvert said:
I hate the 17-55 2.8. Vignettes way to much on my C200.
Click to expand...

Stills, on the original C300, there's a Peripheral Illumination Correction feature that lessens vignetting with that lens on the C300. It works OK, though it seems a touch funky on C-Log footage (probably not an issue with RAW Light)... Is there anything like that in the C200?

As for the 17-55/2.8 in general, I think the glass is OK but as Dan/Pure points out, the construction and autofocus performance of the lens are both meh. The IS is pretty good, though. I (and probably everyone other Canon customer) asked Canon about making a L-quality 18-55. The word several years ago from the video gang was that Canon's still lens group would only build L-series lenses for full-frame cameras. Sigh. But I still get good use out of my 17-55...at least, it's convenient for verity-style stuff; I don't need to change out lenses as much as I would with a (quite nice) Canon 16-35... But I do a fair amount of handheld stuff... When I slow down, I do like my Sigma 18-35...

And like others, I'm looking at the CN-E 18-80 T4.4... I've played with that lens at trade shows. It's pretty nice (and eight-times or so as expensive).

Nick, you're in Boston, right? Maybe swing by Rule or somewhere and see if you can try out the various lens options.
 
Had the 17-55mm. Two examples. Both were soft compared to my L lenses, even the 24-105mm.
And once I upgraded to C200, the image just didn't hold up.
So what replaced it?
The 24-105mm is pretty solid...as Roger Cicala observes..."the Minivan of camera lenses, practical, useful and totally not sexy"...
But needed something wider...
Had the opportunity to use the 18-80mm for a doc. Great lens. However, it's expensive and heavy....I tend to shoot "Hasselblad style" the camera low and cradled, not ENG style.
Tried out the SIGMA 18-35mm. Heavier than you'd think. Nice image, but aside from the weight not weather sealed which is a nonstarter.
Came down to either the new 16-35mm III f/2.8 and the 16-35mm f/4 IS. Both have excellent resolution and contrast. The 2.8 holds it's own against primes at the same speed.
But decided on the f/4. Nicely suited for video...lighter, nearly the same resolution (check out DXOMark if you need to pixel peep), fast focus, didn't really need the extra stop and has IS to boot.
my 2¢
 
I wonder how long it will be until Canon refreshes the 17-55. It's been popular for video ever since the 7D came out, but doesn't stand up so will these days.

A slightly larger imaging circle to allow for the varying sizes of s35 sensors, sharper, better build quality, and - here's what would make it a real winner: internal zoom, so it can be used easily with matte boxes. Even at double the price of the current lens, It think it would become the go-to standard zoom for any one shooting video or stills on an s35 or APS-C camera with EF mount - including DSLR's, URSA mini, C-series, EVA1, and even EF-mount Reds.
 
deltoidjohn said:
I wonder how long it will be until Canon refreshes the 17-55. It's been popular for video ever since the 7D came out, but doesn't stand up so will these days.

A slightly larger imaging circle to allow for the varying sizes of s35 sensors, sharper, better build quality, and - here's what would make it a real winner: internal zoom, so it can be used easily with matte boxes. Even at double the price of the current lens, It think it would become the go-to standard zoom for any one shooting video or stills on an s35 or APS-C camera with EF mount - including DSLR's, URSA mini, C-series, EVA1, and even EF-mount Reds.
Click to expand...

I would buy this lens in a heartbeat if they ever make it, especially if they threw in STM autofocus, preferably at a good price, but I'd probably pay up to $2,000 for it.
 
I've been harping on Canon to do the same, they need a 16mm to 80mm-ish workhorse lens that costs $2,200.00, has the latest IS, STM focusing, L Build quality with the right Aspheric elements. I truly think that they think we'll all just buy the 18-80, which many of us would like to, but T4.4 and $5k precludes some of us who could pay $2,200.00 for T3.5 or 2.8 in a still L lens. They know it but it doesn't seem on their roadmap yet? And may never be on their roadmap.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top