C300: Canon 17-55mm vignettes in 4k, whats a good alternate IS lens when shooting 4k wide?

L

Lkorver

Well-known member
I shoot a ton of handled sports content and the 17-55 2.8 IS has been my go to for a long time, it's a great range, not a heavy lens, and I think gives L quality results but when shooting above UHD, you can see the lens barrels in the corners of the frame. I realize the c300mk3 has stabilization built in but I'd rather avoid that if at all possible. Any ideas?
 
Great lens (for range and price) - pretty damn sharp, just not built very ruggedly - still use it a heck of a lot on my Sony FS5. On my old Canon C100 there was a EF-S lens setting that cropped in slightly to avoid this kind of vignetting with EF-S lenses such as this one. Does the C300Mk3 have that setting?
 
I'm having exactly the same issue. The c300mk3 really reveals its flaws to be honest. In addition to vignetting its also soft at the wide end on the mk3, at least I found that in my own footage. I did a commercial shoot recently where I was only using primes (also with the mk3) and the quality difference was night and day compared to the 17-55. Far more than I ever noticed on the c300mk2 or c100.

There isn't a good solution here. The closest I've found is the 18-80 t4.4. It's not a perfect lens and introduces other complications, such as its size, but produces a far superior image.
 
I had the exact same experience when switching to the C200 years ago. Ended up using the 16 - 35 F/4 IS for a couple of years and then finally bought the 18 to 80 on a great deal. 18-80 is probably my favorite lens I’ve ever used for handheld work on a Canon.
 
The 17-55 is from 2006.

Its sharpness in the center and its overall control of CA (plus IS and a nice range) is a great accomplishment. Other lenses from around the same time are a 1 on a 1-10 scale in comparison.

With that said, it's 2021 and better sensors will continue to showcase its overall softness wide-open compared to something like the world's best around the similar range, the 18-35.

The centers - not included in the examples below - are pretty comparable (which is again impressive for the 17-55), but you can see how the Canon falls apart as you move outwards towards the mid-frame and corners.

So using this lens at 17mm @f/2.8 on detailed environments will be its toughest task.

17-55.jpg

18-35.jpg

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...LensComp=854&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
 
Others have already pointed out the optical pros and cons of the 17-55mm. My biggest gripe with the lens aside from it's OK-but-not-spectacular optical performance is the mediocre manual focusing. The focus ring is small (I don't like lenses that prioritize size of zoom ring over focus ring), and the manual focus feel is just not great compared to some other Canon glass. Its throw is also very small and particularly narrow in some important parts of the focus range, so fine tuning focus can really remind you that you are not on a video centric manual lens, in contrast with a lens like the 70-200 L, which has a great focus ring feel.

I keep saying this, but someone needs to come out with an aps-c/s35 lens in the 17-55 range that is 2.8 with all of the other qualities of the Canon 18-80. The latter is T4.4, which isn't always enough speed, the other cine options like the Fuji MK are great, but no OIS and won't work on EF because of flange distance, and all of the 17-55-ish 2.8 still lenses are pretty mediocre for manual use (Canon, Sigma, Tamron).

I'm actually shocked that no one has tried to tackle that so far. I must be missing something since I'm not an optical designer. Yes, an f2.8 lens will be bigger, but I'd be happy with a fuji mk that had OIS, and as much as I love the 18-80's range, I'd happily give up a bit of that reach to have f2.8.

Anyway, I think I've said this exact thing on like 38 different threads, so my apologies for the broken record. I just don't get why this incredibly useful doc style workhorse lens doesn't exist. The entire video world would be all over it. Just look at how many film makers who can afford a C300 mk1/2/3 have owned or currently own the 17-55mm f2.8. Obviously, it's a needed combo of range, speed, and OIS. But it's such a compromise compared to what could be done. Ok, rant over!
 
While I'm not a huge fan of it, the Canon 18-80 is a pretty darn nice lens. And if that range is your bread & butter, New_Zealand is selling one on here for $3100(-$1500 new). I've contemplated one a few times, even though I own a 17-120.
 
ozmorphasis said:
I just don't get why this incredibly useful doc style workhorse lens doesn't exist. The entire video world would be all over it. Just look at how many film makers who can afford a C300 mk1/2/3 have owned or currently own the 17-55mm f2.8. Obviously, it's a needed combo of range, speed, and OIS. But it's such a compromise compared to what could be done. Ok, rant over!
Click to expand...

i will bang this drum with you. You'd think since the lens came out in 2006, Sigma or someone would've made something better.
 
Just like with cameras, they can't give us a lens that good because we'll stop buying lenses.

Of course they can make it, but they won't.

Some lenses will be f/2.8.
Some lenses will have the reach.
Some lenses will have the IS.

___

Occasionally you'll see 2/3 in a nice surprise.

That's just how it works with corporate otherwise if it didn't, and we were thinking logically, it would just be pure insanity how anyone hasn't come up with something everyone clearly wants and needs.
 
ozmorphasis said:
Others have already pointed out the optical pros and cons of the 17-55mm. My biggest gripe with the lens aside from it's OK-but-not-spectacular optical performance is the mediocre manual focusing. The focus ring is small (I don't like lenses that prioritize size of zoom ring over focus ring), and the manual focus feel is just not great compared to some other Canon glass. Its throw is also very small and particularly narrow in some important parts of the focus range, so fine tuning focus can really remind you that you are not on a video centric manual lens, in contrast with a lens like the 70-200 L, which has a great focus ring feel.

I keep saying this, but someone needs to come out with an aps-c/s35 lens in the 17-55 range that is 2.8 with all of the other qualities of the Canon 18-80. The latter is T4.4, which isn't always enough speed, the other cine options like the Fuji MK are great, but no OIS and won't work on EF because of flange distance, and all of the 17-55-ish 2.8 still lenses are pretty mediocre for manual use (Canon, Sigma, Tamron).

I'm actually shocked that no one has tried to tackle that so far. I must be missing something since I'm not an optical designer. Yes, an f2.8 lens will be bigger, but I'd be happy with a fuji mk that had OIS, and as much as I love the 18-80's range, I'd happily give up a bit of that reach to have f2.8.

Anyway, I think I've said this exact thing on like 38 different threads, so my apologies for the broken record. I just don't get why this incredibly useful doc style workhorse lens doesn't exist. The entire video world would be all over it. Just look at how many film makers who can afford a C300 mk1/2/3 have owned or currently own the 17-55mm f2.8. Obviously, it's a needed combo of range, speed, and OIS. But it's such a compromise compared to what could be done. Ok, rant over!
Click to expand...

I agree a lens like that would be cool as another choice but at that point it's likely going against a 2-lens set up. At which point I'd probably still stick with 18-35 for "wides" then carry a second lens for close up shots.

I'd personally rather an 18-80 T2.95, which is bigger than the 18-80 T4.4 but smaller than the 17-120, without the same price tag but doubt canon will make one given their current offerings.

New Zealand's 18-80 is an amazing deal. Too bad the only creative brief these days for long form news is "shallow depth of field".
 
The combination of the Canon focal reducer with the 24-105mm f/4 lens was a big factor in my decision to go with the C70, and I'd highly recommend it if you ever find yourself with an RF mount body (rumor has it that the next C300 will be RF). It's like having a 17-70mm f/2.8 lens with great stabilization and excellent autofocus, and it never comes off my camera.

Otherwise, my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX HSM has been a good alternative to the Canon equivalent. The corners are slightly dark shooting DCI 4K on my C70. DPAF works well, though it is a little noisy (probably no worse than your Canon). And it has a short focus throw. But I haven't had any complaints with optical performance. There are definitely worse ways to spend two hundred bucks.
 
Too bad the only creative brief these days for long form news is "shallow depth of field".
Click to expand...

As much as I LOVE my 18-80, getting it on sets is always an uphill battle because the director always wants to shoot wide open with as shallow depth as possible. This always sparks the conversation in my head “ do you want the shot to look really great and capture exactly what we need? Or do you want it to look shaky, hunting for focus, and looking like it was shot on a 5D?” Call me crazy but I think the audience would prefer option one
 
chris f said:
As much as I LOVE my 18-80, getting it on sets is always an uphill battle because the director always wants to shoot wide open with as shallow depth as possible. This always sparks the conversation in my head “ do you want the shot to look really great and capture exactly what we need? Or do you want it to look shaky, hunting for focus, and looking like it was shot on a 5D?” Call me crazy but I think the audience would prefer option one
Click to expand...

If there was a worldwide case study, most brains would likely prefer the look of option 2 (which also doesn't need to be shaky or hunting for focus when using the right cameras and tools).

Sometimes it feels good to slap a rig on the shoulder and ruggedly blue-collar it out in the field with IS, but it can be just as nice using a small AF prime on a gimbal.

___

As far as the news, I can't believe how much shallow DOF has made it into this part of video production in the last year.
 
NorBro said:
If there was a worldwide case study, most brains would likely prefer the look of option 2 (which also doesn't need to be shaky or hunting for focus when using the right cameras and tools).

Sometimes it feels good to slap a rig on the shoulder and ruggedly blue-collar it out in the field with IS, but it can be just as nice using a small AF prime on a gimbal.

___

As far as the news, I can't believe how much shallow DOF has made it into this part of video production in the last year.
Click to expand...

I chalk part of that up to the fact that they can buy little s35/FF cameras way cheaper than real ENG cameras, plus it's a monkey-see, monkey-do business.
 
At one point do the other cameras become accepted as the real ENG cameras while the ENG cameras become footnotes? (Because they can't anymore provide the type of pictures that are desired.)

If someone would like color, they can't use B&W...

Not that everyone is asking for full-frame (I presume), but if that's their decision then the other cameras will not cut it anymore.
 
NorBro said:
ruggedly blue-collar it out in the field with IS
Click to expand...

NorBro Antoinette strikes again. That gave me a good chuckle.

I see both sides of the coin: the importance of all the aspects of image creation that aren't shallow DOF (and the undesirability of too shallow DOF), and also the fundamental impact that selective focus has on viewers.

But I think it's worth looking at our still photographer comrades as an indicator of where trends go with fewer limitations on production. In other words - still photographers can have lightning fast AF or good MF, super duper resolution, bodies as small as they want to go, sensor sizes of any format they like. And what do they go for?

By and large, I think full-frame 35 is far and away the most popular format to shoot with in photography. Some medium format. But vanishingly little shot smaller than FF. Sure - they don't have the same focus needs for evolving scenes and multiple characters as we do. But they like the FF look.

And then resolution - I remember reading that the promo photographer for Breaking Bad sent back his latest and greatest 100MP Hasselblad to the rental house in exchange for the previous 70 or 80MP version because it was annoyingly detailed.
 
lol. FTR, I see both sides too. Everything cannot have shallow DOF all the time...would cause a headache.

Ironically, 90% of what I watch is deep (sports, old shows/sitcoms on in the background).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top