C100: canon 70-200 2.8 IS version 1 for c100?
- Thread starter Josh Bass
- Start date
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
I keep hearing about the 18-135...... I'd get one if I didn't all ready have the 24-105. I know about the barrel distortion on the 24-105 and never use it less than 40mm. Seeing a review of the 18-135...... the barrel distortion looked worse than the 24-105....... but that was just based on a review, you have hands on experience, and I tend to trust first impressions and intuition more than specs.
I rarely if ever use any lens other than in photography where IS is important to me. I would prefer to turn off the IS because I use a tripod or slider. I'm by no means your typical film maker. This is a hobby for me...... but, I'm completely obsessed with it!
All that said, I have a 50 f1.4, a 24-105, and a 70-200 f4 IS...... I've used each one of these lenses quite a bit, but when I used the 70-200 f2.8 USM II it was a revelation to me...... something a kin to an LSD trip...... I think I saw God, for a brief moment in time!
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
I love it and hate it at the same time.......... like we all do.
cpreston
Veteran
I have the 24-105, the 18-135stm, and the 70-200 II. Even on the C100 and all stopped down, the 70-200 II has a noticeably better image. It's not just the f/2.8. I still end up using the 18-135stm about 50% of the time, though. It's the best option for quick handheld b-roll. The IS and AF are also dead silent compared to the 24-105 and it actually holds it's focus and light transmission after zooming. The 70-200 is also quiet and maintains aperture. As a comparison, the new 100-400L IS II also has the same image quality as the 70-200 II, but it is not as fast and is just as expensive.
I am still getting varying opinions from people in town I talk to. . .some say they tested version 1 vs 2 on a Red Scarlet and couldn't see $1000 difference, but some folks like to shoot most things at f4 where the versions are much more similar. I'm trying to see if anyone in town owns the old one or a local store carries it and I could A/B it with a version 2 with the C100 in a real world situation (talking head).
control4userguy
Well-known member
I don't think you will see a major diff. in video clips! Unless you pull a screen shot or shoot stills on the C100 (not the same resolution then) and do 100% crops, only then might you see a $1k diff (this and the IS improvements). If the money isn't there for a V2 then that is that. It has been improved over V1, no doubt about that. Just how much may depend on production variation though. Plenty of unhappy V2 owners to go along with happy ones. I never buy a lens on the net- always go to a B&M and try a few.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
The 18-135 STM IS is no great lens but it is the best current run and gun lens for the C100/300. The 24-105 isn't wide enough, is much heavier and more expensive. I have a client who has one and I have to use it periodically. It's not a terrible lens but not a very good one either for the money. It works much better on the 5D MKIII than the C100. 18-135 STM IS was $200.00 with my closeout C100 MKI and I don't regret it, I have shot entire projects with it and it's not terrible, it can look good with the right lighting, the IS is excellent. I hate the focus by wire though, makes shooting rack focuses impossible, snap zooms are almost impossible. The 17-55 is not long enough for run and gun in most situations. I shoot on a lot of movie and TV sets. There is not a lot of time to change lenses and I often have to go from following an actor or director to running across the set and shooting the same person from quite a distance. It's all handheld, there is usually decent lighting or we are outside so the 18-135 STM IS is the best compromise for me, YMMV. 24-105 has better build quality still terrible barrel distortion, sub par IS and for my work, it isn't wide enough or long enough. I wish Canon would come out with an 18-105 2.8 STM IS L and sell it for $2,000.00, they would sell a LOT of them, at least for video.
Karl Anthony
Active member
I would buy this lens twice.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
Really? 70-200 2.8 IS II owners who don't like the lens? I have yet to meet a single one.
control4userguy
Well-known member
It's not total rejection I'm talking about. It's the fact that Canon prices this thing to the point where it should wipe-up after yourself. The 70-200 has barrel distortion. It's sharp but is it sharp enough to warrant the asking price?? Video, video were talking about- not stills.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Maybe, but the 70-200 lens IS a still lens. It just happens that people use it for video (like many other ''L'' lenses or any still lenses for that matter). Maybe Canon should email us a rebate, for us, video shooters.
24-105 for me is a done deal cause my girlfriend who is a photographer has one already, so free access most of the time. a/b ing the 70-200s still sounds like a good idea based on this thread. its even been pointed out that there are production quality variations among these lenses...perhaps this accounts for the varying amounts of happiness among purchasers?
cpreston
Veteran
Or maybe some people just like to complain because they think everything is overpriced. The 70-200 does what it is designed to do extremely well and almost everybody that I have worked with on corporate and event videography ends up buying one at some point. It is not known to have reliability issues, but when you get one you should test to make sure that the focal plane is flat and the corners are sharp just to make sure.
control4userguy
Well-known member
I spend on equipment like no other- it's not about price, as for me, with this lens. As an individual, I don't have the time to hunt for a good sample other than combing through the 5 or 6 on the shelf at the local camera emporium. I don't think anyone here mentioned reliability- it's, as you hinted, an issue of landing a unit actually falling well below Canon's cutpoints. I bet, given enough time, I could find a Tamron 70-200 that actually had super power too...
OP, I don't think your going to get your answer here. Nor, will YouTube tell you what to do. Do like a lot do and rent the new one and compare with something else you might have at standard conditions and go from there. My criteria, beyond FL, was sharpness far above an STM lens and IS that helped me at 1/48 shutter speed. That was it. And, because I spend everything I ever earn, I wound-up with a V2 and not a V1. Am I a dumb consumer?
OP, I don't think your going to get your answer here. Nor, will YouTube tell you what to do. Do like a lot do and rent the new one and compare with something else you might have at standard conditions and go from there. My criteria, beyond FL, was sharpness far above an STM lens and IS that helped me at 1/48 shutter speed. That was it. And, because I spend everything I ever earn, I wound-up with a V2 and not a V1. Am I a dumb consumer?
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
"Really? 70-200 2.8 IS II owners who don't like the lens? I have yet to meet a single one."
It's only expensive if you can't afford it.
As to whether the lens is "worth it", I think in this case you have to look beyond the specs. There are other lenses that cover that focal range but don't have the same visual quality. That's what you have to consider here. The 70-200 2.8 has a certain wow factor that I just don't see in a lot of other lenses, so for me it's completely worth every penny of it's asking price.
And I still stand by my point that nobody who owns this lens doesn't like it. The 24-105? Yeah...that ones got a lot more haters.
It's only expensive if you can't afford it.
As to whether the lens is "worth it", I think in this case you have to look beyond the specs. There are other lenses that cover that focal range but don't have the same visual quality. That's what you have to consider here. The 70-200 2.8 has a certain wow factor that I just don't see in a lot of other lenses, so for me it's completely worth every penny of it's asking price.
And I still stand by my point that nobody who owns this lens doesn't like it. The 24-105? Yeah...that ones got a lot more haters.
control4userguy
Well-known member
Well, I'm an owner of the V2. I'm keeping it but I'm not committed to Canon solely based on inconsistent sample quality. Similar to the UWA & 24-70 2.8 IS dilemma that so many are in right now, the 70-200 market is not flooded with "users-choice" examples. Agree on the 24-105. When I picked-up my C100MKII they asked why I didn't take the red-stripe while I was there. Simple, I rented it and paired it with a 70D and it failed on a few levels. The STM was better (only choice was between the two at the time).
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
I don't understand this. I have a 24-105, and I have a 70-200 f4 IS...... the 70-200 f4 IS, you really can't complain about, I mean it's as good as it gets. The 24-105 yea, it doesn't quite compare with the 70-200. Why the hell people stick with the 24-105 after they have experienced the 70 -200 f2.8 IS mk II is beyondd rational thought. it really begins to sound like you are just disgruntled about something...... I don't get it!
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
18-135mm is the same sharpness, contrast as the 24-105mm F4. Most strangely, similar light transmission throughout the focal range.
It's, much wider for s35, has significantly better image stabilization (the best on any camera I've ever used, including 5 axis in-body stabilization and all Canon IS lenses
Plus it makes no noise whilst focusing, zooming or IS.
It also works with the Dual Pixel AF including supporting Facial tracking on the C100.
And it goes to 135mm.
The distortion at 18mm is not much better than than the 24mm on the L, but it is better at 24mm. It has less chromatic abberation and less flare.
It's lighter and cheaper.
I have no idea why Canon choose the 24-105mm L as the Cx00 kit lens. The 18-135mm is just better for that camera as an all rounder. Perhaps it's because it wasn't out yet (the STM version) when the Cx00 came out and it stuck to it.
The 24-105mm and 18-135mm are not the highest quality (optical) lenses, a 50mm prime or a 70-200mm F/2.8 gives a pop that simply isn't on them. But they are more the adequate for almost all work as a run and gun lens, especially with the sharp CX00 line. And since people have accepted the 24-105mm sharpness/contrast they will accept the 18-135mm STM too.
The 24-105mm F4 pros are: It covers the full frame circle shall you need to use it on a FF camera later, something the 18-135mm won't be able to do. It'a better build, it is. But the STM is not a kit lens type built, it's pretty solid, just not L level. It also has a fully manual focus ring if you need to use it on a different camera without with a cheap dumb adapter vs fly by wire on the 18-135mm. Constant aperture should be a main advantage too but it's not.
Since my 24-105mm that I have used non stop for years fell down on it's face, with the barrel extended, it got stuck and died with a repair cost higher than a new one. On my way to pick another, I picked the 18-135mm, and wow it's actually better.
Unless you shoot FF, the 18-135mm STM is the best all rounder lens for Canon.
About the 70-200mm 2.8s, the new version is better, significantly better. The image stabilization is much better in performance but also in sound, the AF is better in performance and also sound, the image quality is simply better and has a magical POP to the image, I found the bokeh to be also better.
If you only have the budget for the MKI, then of course get the MKI, it's a great lens, but if you can stretch to the MKII, it's really worth it as an investment. It will last you forever.
It's, much wider for s35, has significantly better image stabilization (the best on any camera I've ever used, including 5 axis in-body stabilization and all Canon IS lenses
Plus it makes no noise whilst focusing, zooming or IS.
It also works with the Dual Pixel AF including supporting Facial tracking on the C100.
And it goes to 135mm.
The distortion at 18mm is not much better than than the 24mm on the L, but it is better at 24mm. It has less chromatic abberation and less flare.
It's lighter and cheaper.
I have no idea why Canon choose the 24-105mm L as the Cx00 kit lens. The 18-135mm is just better for that camera as an all rounder. Perhaps it's because it wasn't out yet (the STM version) when the Cx00 came out and it stuck to it.
The 24-105mm and 18-135mm are not the highest quality (optical) lenses, a 50mm prime or a 70-200mm F/2.8 gives a pop that simply isn't on them. But they are more the adequate for almost all work as a run and gun lens, especially with the sharp CX00 line. And since people have accepted the 24-105mm sharpness/contrast they will accept the 18-135mm STM too.
The 24-105mm F4 pros are: It covers the full frame circle shall you need to use it on a FF camera later, something the 18-135mm won't be able to do. It'a better build, it is. But the STM is not a kit lens type built, it's pretty solid, just not L level. It also has a fully manual focus ring if you need to use it on a different camera without with a cheap dumb adapter vs fly by wire on the 18-135mm. Constant aperture should be a main advantage too but it's not.
Since my 24-105mm that I have used non stop for years fell down on it's face, with the barrel extended, it got stuck and died with a repair cost higher than a new one. On my way to pick another, I picked the 18-135mm, and wow it's actually better.
Unless you shoot FF, the 18-135mm STM is the best all rounder lens for Canon.
About the 70-200mm 2.8s, the new version is better, significantly better. The image stabilization is much better in performance but also in sound, the AF is better in performance and also sound, the image quality is simply better and has a magical POP to the image, I found the bokeh to be also better.
If you only have the budget for the MKI, then of course get the MKI, it's a great lens, but if you can stretch to the MKII, it's really worth it as an investment. It will last you forever.