C100: Canon 24-70 on the C100

scorsesefan

scorsesefan

Veteran
I just picked up a used Canon 24-70 2.8 I for my C100. I love the image (color rendition/sharpness) on this lens, but I'm a little concerned about the weight of the lens shooting handheld. Do I need to get fitted for a back truss? :).. Can anyone share their experiences with it on the cinema cameras?

Thanks
 
Yeah, I would think Canon would be concerned about the weight too if and when a 28-70/2.8 IS comes to fruition. At 26oz., your lens it is nearly 40% heavier than the 18-135 kit lens Canon supplied with the 100/2. I routinely shoot through a 41oz. lens handheld and it's a major chore. What other lens do you carry? I think this is a question of relativity...
 
I have a Tamron 17-50, Tamron 18-200, Rokinon 35mm 1.4, but selling the 17-50.. thinking of shooting on a monopod more though...
 
As someone who slung a 25lb Betacam, F900s and Varicams around for a decade, it's really much more about comfort and correct weight distribution. I find shooting monpod very limiting, but it can work if you don't need to vary height and angle very much. I feel that with the advent of small cameras, the fine art of handheld shooting has somewhat gone out the the window. If you don't have one already, build a good, quality shoulder mount system with correct weight distribution with the weight slightly biased toward the rear of the camera, behind your shoulder. Invest in a Zacuto grip relocater. My rig is a Frankenstein but I shot handheld with it for 10-12 hours per day for ten days straight with it in the Sahara Desert in May. It was 128F for five days straight and I was tired but the rig worked great. Rods with extensions, three pound lead counter weight at the rear, Atomos Ninja Blade off the side, Sennheiser receiver from Sound Mixer for sync audio, my rig had a lot of junk hanging off of it but it is correctly balanced. I shot HH quite a bit with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, no problems with weight or fatigue at all. The camera ops on the show I was shooting BTS on were shooting fully rigged Amiras and fully rigged Alexa Minis, both with Panavision zooms, which are huge and heavy, their rigs had everything on them that could be put on them, they let me shoot a bit and those rigs weighed probably 35lbs but were very comfortable. Fight the weight and you will be miserable. Configure weight to work with you and it actually helps you get better shots because of the inertia of the mass.
 
I have found after shooting several years with both Canon C100 and C300 that the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens has been the best lens for handheld work. Inside, I can always move closer. I have recently purchased the 24-70mm for interviews. I change out with a 100mm 2.8 if I need to get real CU's. Working on a monopod is a great way to go if you are not literally running around following action, but have a bit more control. I would not use the 24-70 handheld unless I had a shoulder mount or monopod, you just can't hold it steady enough outside the widest mm. The other great lens for monopod work is the 70-200mm f4 which is light enough to use on a monopod. Best of luck.
 
I was actually meeting someone to pick up the 17-55 but he flaked and a 24-70 fell into my hands <$500 so I couldn't say no :)
 
Ive had my eye on that lens too, but the lack of image stabilization for hand held like you need was a real turn off.
 
puredrifting said:
This ^^^^^^^^^^

I just bought the 17-55 2.8 IS also for this exact reason. Plus 24mm on S35 FOV is too narrow for what I shoot.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I shoot a lot of verite so theoretically I should go with a wider lens. The image is just so damn good though :/ ... I'll give it a work out and come to a verdict. Maybe I'll keep my 17-50 and use the 24-70 as an interview lens...
 
On S35 FOV, 24mm = 38mm FF equivalent FOV. Good for people but bad for environmental portrait type framing where you need to see the person in their environment, which I do a lot of when I interview directors, actors and producers on set. 17mm = 27.2mm 35mm FOV, that's plenty wide for most things. I just shot some dancing on my gimbal close up, that needed to be with the 10-18mm STM IS set at around 12mm-14mm to see faces and footwork in the same frame with some intimacy and feeling like the viewer was in the dance. So it just depends on what you mostly shoot. For exteriors, you can always just move back to widen the frame but interiors...
 
puredrifting said:
This ^^^^^^^^^^

I just bought the 17-55 2.8 IS also for this exact reason. Plus 24mm on S35 FOV is too narrow for what I shoot.
Click to expand...

Congrats! Nice lens. I just got the 10-18 IS 4.5 and getting my C100 back tomorrow with the DPAF upgrade. Gonna set her up and take her for a spin on the Helix. Im gaining an appreciation for these wide angle lens now, before never considered one....... Just wish it worked on full frame cameras too!

My neighbor has the 24-70 2.8 II which was super nice, but if I were going to go that route I'd get the 24-70 2.8 II. Saw a review on Digital Rev. of the 24-70 f2.8 I vs the 24 -105 and they actually gave the advantage as far as sharpness to the 24-105 and it has IS.
 
That's interesting. A lot of the footage/complaints I've seen about the 24-105 indicate there are a lot of soft copies out there.
 
Last edited:
I love the image on the Canon 24-70 2.8 II, but man that's some expensive glass. I've used the 17-55 as well, and it's also nice. Problem with the 17-55 is the durability. I've never owned one myself but I've worked with two different ops who have had copies fall apart on them, get dust in the body, and otherwise just be a hassle after just a couple years of regular use. When I buy a lens I expect it to last a really long time. Camera bodies come and go but I want to use a lens for as long as I can.

I like to tout the Tamron 24-70 2.8 with IS as the ideal compromise for those who do a lot of handheld or monopod work. The Tamron really is a great lens. Superb optics, moisture resistant, fast AF, and way cheaper than the Canon 24-70 2.8. The autofocus did crap out on mine earlier this year, but Tamron fixed it with less than a week turnaround, and it comes with a 6 year warranty.

Other cameras in my bag: a Tokina 11-16 2.8, Canon 70-200 2.8, a Canon 50mm 1.8, and a Canon 24-105. My 24-105 is sharp as a tack. I use it for all my outdoor daytime work and it's rock solid.

All that said, I plan on getting the Canon 24-70 2.8 II one day. That lens is magic. Just wish it wasn't 1700 clams.

I've never worried about weight distribution with the Canon 24-70 on my C100 when I've used it. I do have to worry about it with my 70-200, though. I briefly considered some type of support for the 70-200, but then I started mounting the camera/lens to my tripod head by the bracket close to the base of the70-200 to get a more equal weight distribution, and I feel pretty comfortable with it.
 
scorsesefan said:
I just picked up a used Canon 24-70 2.8 I for my C100. I love the image (color rendition/sharpness) on this lens, but I'm a little concerned about the weight of the lens shooting handheld. Do I need to get fitted for a back truss? :).. Can anyone share their experiences with it on the cinema cameras?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I prefer IS for handheld shooting. The 18-135 STM or 24-105 are really nice for that. The weight certainly isn't a problem for the mount, but the 24-70 f/2.8 I is really front heavy and feels odd. The version II is actually a much better lens for image and handheld feel. I use a shoulder sling or the neck strap for both walking around with the camera and for extra stability while shooting. The C100 has a neck strap for a reason, although most videographers never think to try it out.
 
I prefer the 24-105 for handheld shooting. However, have done handheld with the 24-70 f2.8 as the extra one stop aperture is good for low light. I always have a neck strap on my C300. I sling the strap across the neck and shoulder so that it becomes tight and then I can shoot handheld.

The version II of the 24-70 f2.8 is very nice. One needs to plan to buy these expensive lenses, so that shelling out money becomes easy. Impulse purchase hits the wallet hard.
 
But the neck strap is only good when the cam is positioned low and you are monitoring the LCD, correct? I do a lot of shooting with the evf (eye cup)...
 
jthabel said:
I've used the 17-55 as well, and it's also nice. Problem with the 17-55 is the durability. I've never owned one myself but I've worked with two different ops who have had copies fall apart on them, get dust in the body, and otherwise just be a hassle after just a couple years of regular use. When I buy a lens I expect it to last a really long time. Camera bodies come and go but I want to use a lens for as long as I can.
Click to expand...

I hear you, my new Canon 17-55 2.8 IS arrives today and frankly, after renting it a few times, I suspect that the build quality may be sub-par. I researched used ones all over the place and there were always remarks about internal dust and de-laminated elements. The prices on used ones are pretty low too, another sign that they may not be very well built for pro use. If you look around, it's not hard to find them used for $400.00 to $450.00, which for a fast Canon zoom is really crappy resale value. I will report back once I put mine through a few months of use. I paid $829.00 new and Canon has the $50.00 Amex gift card rebate, which expires this week, so my net is $779.00. If it falls apart, as long as I make some money with it, I can live with it. Will be disappointing but that's the breaks. I want to buy the 18-80 CNe but it's still not shipping and for my work, T4.4 is going to be too slow, I will be using the 17-55 often wide open.

I wish Canon would make a 17-70 2.8 L IS built like the 24-70 2.8 II. Sell it for $2,100.00 and we would all be lined up to buy it.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I hear you, my new Canon 17-55 2.8 IS arrives today and frankly, after renting it a few times, I suspect that the build quality may be sub-par. I researched used ones all over the place and there were always remarks about internal dust and de-laminated elements. The prices on used ones are pretty low too, another sign that they may not be very well built for pro use. If you looks around, it;'s not hard to find them used for $400.00 to $450.00, which for a fast Canaon zoom is really crapy resale value. I will report back once I put mine through a few months of use. I paid $829.00 new and Canon has the $50.00 Amex gift card rebate, which expires this week, so my net is $779.00. If it falls apart, as long as I make some money with it, I can live with it. Will be disappointing but that's the breaks. I want to buy the 18-80 CNe but it's still not shipping and for my work, T4.4 is going to be too slow, I will be using the 17-55 often wide open.

I wish Canon would make a 17-70 2.8 L IS built like the 24-70 2.8 II. Sell it for $2,100.00 and we would all be lined up to buy it.
Click to expand...

I second that. My 17-55 hardly comes off my C100. If Canon made a 17-70 2.8 L IS I practically wouldn't need another lens.
 
seanarmada said:
I second that. My 17-55 hardly comes off my C100. If Canon made a 17-70 2.8 L IS I practically wouldn't need another lens.
Click to expand...

A 17-70 would be awesome. I suspect Canon is trying to sell us other focal lengths and a 17-70 would go against that. If somebody made a constant aperture EF with a wide zoom range (a la Angenieux) the would make a fortune... (but with all of those elements would probably cost a fortune :)
 
scorsesefan said:
But the neck strap is only good when the cam is positioned low and you are monitoring the LCD, correct? I do a lot of shooting with the evf (eye cup)...
Click to expand...

barebones shooting with EVF tightly pressed to the eye and neck strap tightly wound around me and hands tightly on my chest, I can shoot for sometime but not much (with a long lens). I have tried using a short monopod with the monopod leg on my jacket pocket and evf on eye adding another point of contact. That works fine. I shoot from motor boats and there is no way I can place a tripod or monopod on the boat as the vibration is immediately transmitted. So I place the monopod on my jacket pocket and it helps in arresting the vertical motion. This trick I used to do during my still photography days, when I am on top of an elephant and it used to work.

People hate monopod as it is often irritating to reduce or elongate it. You may try this trick and see if it works for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top