New_Zealand
Veteran
Shooting on the C300 Mkii. What is a good canon zoom lens (up to 200mm) that will work great with the auto focus that this camera has. Thanks
C300: Canon Zoom lens for C300 mkii?
- Thread starter New_Zealand
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is an icon.
There are others and some that are probably even better/faster now (like the III version of it), but that was always a beloved lens. [If you're on a budget, the f/4 versions are no slouches.]
If you need a wider zoom lens, the 24-105mm ones are popular too, but not sure how good they are.
There are others and some that are probably even better/faster now (like the III version of it), but that was always a beloved lens. [If you're on a budget, the f/4 versions are no slouches.]
If you need a wider zoom lens, the 24-105mm ones are popular too, but not sure how good they are.
kohl-sudduth
Well-known member
I use the Canon 70 200 2.8 II also. Autofocus works well.
The 18 80 T4.4 Compact Zoom is what I use most of the time lately.
Never used the 24 105 lenses so can't speak to those.
Always wondered how autofocus was with the Sigma 70 200 2.8 but no experience there.
cpreston
Veteran
For just gathering useable footage quickly, the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 stm is Canon's best lens for the money. I have the 18-80 t4.4 now for that purpose, but the 18-135 stm lens was my go to lens for awhile. If found it better than the 24-105 f/4 in every way other the loss of a stop of light when wide open.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
The EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is our favorite lens. It's so good, so flattering to people and operationally, it's really usable for a still lens for video.
We have the EF S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS and the EF 24-105mm IS II. The 18-135 has a ton of vignetting in the corners, is barely usable with the C300 MKII and isn't usable with the
C200 RAW because of the 17:9 DCI aspect ratio, you see the edges of the lens circle. It is sharp enough to use with the C300 MKII, but is not the best build quality. It's a cheap lens, I think we got it
in a package deal with our C100 MKI back in the day. It, and all of the it's variants are cheap, usable lenses but not L quality at all. I shot a 30 minute BTS TV special for Fox using nothing but that
lens in Africa for run & gun. The other thing is it has focusing delay. If you do even a moderately fast zoom, the focusing will be quite a way behind the zoom, it looks really bad. I know, don't shoot while
zooming but in documentary, event, EPK and BTS, constant reframing and crash zooms are par for the course and that lens sucks for doing that style of shooting. The 24-105mm does NOT have this focus lag at all.
The EF 24-105mm IS II has superior sharpness, has much less vignetting in the corners and is noticeably sharper. It's funny, we had the original 24-105mm IS, and hated it it, sold it, not a good lens, but the
IS II version we bought after we didn't like the 18-135 STM IS and is pretty good, much sharper and less distortion. We shoot more with the C200 than the C300 MKII because the RAW is
better and the C200 is smaller and lighter but keep the C300 MKII around for broadcast kinds of jobs and clients who cannot deal with RAW.
If we just have to grab two lenses for any shoot, it will always be the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. With those two, other than wide angle, you're covered for almost anything.
We have the EF S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS and the EF 24-105mm IS II. The 18-135 has a ton of vignetting in the corners, is barely usable with the C300 MKII and isn't usable with the
C200 RAW because of the 17:9 DCI aspect ratio, you see the edges of the lens circle. It is sharp enough to use with the C300 MKII, but is not the best build quality. It's a cheap lens, I think we got it
in a package deal with our C100 MKI back in the day. It, and all of the it's variants are cheap, usable lenses but not L quality at all. I shot a 30 minute BTS TV special for Fox using nothing but that
lens in Africa for run & gun. The other thing is it has focusing delay. If you do even a moderately fast zoom, the focusing will be quite a way behind the zoom, it looks really bad. I know, don't shoot while
zooming but in documentary, event, EPK and BTS, constant reframing and crash zooms are par for the course and that lens sucks for doing that style of shooting. The 24-105mm does NOT have this focus lag at all.
The EF 24-105mm IS II has superior sharpness, has much less vignetting in the corners and is noticeably sharper. It's funny, we had the original 24-105mm IS, and hated it it, sold it, not a good lens, but the
IS II version we bought after we didn't like the 18-135 STM IS and is pretty good, much sharper and less distortion. We shoot more with the C200 than the C300 MKII because the RAW is
better and the C200 is smaller and lighter but keep the C300 MKII around for broadcast kinds of jobs and clients who cannot deal with RAW.
If we just have to grab two lenses for any shoot, it will always be the EF 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. With those two, other than wide angle, you're covered for almost anything.
Last edited:
The only updates between II and III were to the lens coatings and brighter paint.
Interestingly, the III is actually cheaper right now with an instant rebate.
You've probably seen the rumors already -- according to CR, Canon's lens road map has 70-135 F2 RF (to go along with the 28-70 F2, which retails for three grand as of now). You'd think there'd be a camera to go along with these two lenses.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Probably mostly about keeping it an F2. A 200 at f2 would be gigantic, heavy, expensive..like this....
...or they are hoping to move past a merely new holy trinity, with a holy quadrophenia.
Well, they'll also supposedly have 100-500 4.5-7.1, plus two (1.4x and 2x) extenders. 25-70 + 70-135 will cover most of the interior shoots, presuming a future 15-28 or something like that.
cpreston
Veteran
I guess I should explain why I think the 18-135mm is too easily dismissed vs the 24-105 f/4L. First, the 18-135 is quite a bit cheaper. Second, as long as you aren't shooting in RAW and don't shake the lens around and overwhelm the IS, the peripheral illumination correction will take care of the vignetting. The 24-105 tends to be parfocal, but some copies aren't. Therefore, you can't quite trust that crash zooms are going to be possible for either lens. Really, neither zoom is meant for it, although you can buy a zoom controller for the 18-135 lens. What I like about the 18-135 stm is that you can actually trust that the lens will hold focus from 135mm to 18mm since it is focus by wire. The 18-135 is a quieter lens for both IS and focus. The 18-135 has much better IS for video. The 24-105 attempts to stabilize a shot for photo work. The 18-135 will allow you to pan or walk around without attempting to snap onto a frame when you are panning or tilting, especially at the long end. The 18-135 actually maintains transmission if you set it at f/5.6. The 24-105 is an incredible hassle for light transmission if you are not using it wide open. Set it to f/5.6 or any other f stop and it loses at least a stop of light when you zoom. You do see the iris changing on the 18-135 while trying to do a crash zoom, though. The 18-135 is lighter. The 18-135 is a much more useful zoom range.
All that said, the 24-105 has noticeably better IQ, at least if you get version II. The 18-135 is useless for manual focus. The build quality on the 18-135 is crap.
Both lenses are much cheaper on the used market.
I still have an 18-135 that I regularly use with my EOS R on a single handled gimbal. I do some event work and the 18-135 is very useful for that. I would not suggest using the 18-135 for any type of narrative work or commercial work.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Agreed, I shot my daughters YouTube channel videos with the 80D and 18-135 and it behaved fairly well on that body.
I wish it would behave on our X-T3 with the Fringer Pro adapter. But it doesn't. Anytime you zoom past about 60mm,
it loses focus and will not come back into focus unless you do it manually, then turn the AF back on.
I like the CN E 18-80 but t/4.4 is simply too slow for a lot of things, especially if you can't light like when following documentary
subjects into various places. What Canon really should do is make a better, faster and significantly more expensive 18-135. Make it FF. Make it fixed say f/3.5,
latest IS and STM motors, L build quality, no focus lag, FF coverage and charge $2k for it. We would all make it a number one best seller, 18-135
is about the best single lens focal length you can think of. The 24-105mm IS II copy I landed is surprisingly good. It is parfocal and the MF is leagues better
than the 18-135mm. but 24mm on a S35 sensor isn't wide enough to be an all purpose lens, too tight for many verite situations.
The other way to go is to forgo all of the zoom/AF issues and just shoot with a MF, manual declicked aperture lower end cine set, like a 24mm, 50mm, 85mm and
get something good but reasonable cost like the SLR Magic APO Hyperprimes. As long as your rig has some weight to it, you can tame the micro jitter and the images
themselves will be lush and I still much prefer the handheld aesthetic compared to my stupid, robotic gimbal aesthetic in most cases, unless I am actually walking with
the camera, then the gimbal wins out because I can't walk with a handheld camera generally and make it look smooth enough.
cpreston
Veteran
The SLR Magic are the first cine lenses that have interested me, but I don't believe the transmit lens data so I don't think the manual focus assist will work. Is that right? I think Sigma cine lenses works with Canon's DPAF. Canon's work, but I really get put off by the CA on the 35, 50 and 85. I wish they would update those lenses.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
The Sigma's do report the data, I reviewed them last year with the C200 and C300 MKII. I don't think the SLR Magics do.
For me, the CN E primes wouldn't work as I need 150-190 degree focus rotation as I dislike follow focuses and would typically
just use my fingers to focus, the CN E Primes have a 300 degree focus rotation I believe.
I can't see spending a lot of money for cine primes as to my eye, there is very little difference in the lower end compared to the inexpensive Canon still primes.
The $3.5K Sigma 50mm t/1.5 cine prime only looked a bit better than the $100.00 Canon 50mm f/1.8. Obviously the Sigma is built better
and functionally for filmmaking is better, but when I see the image differences in the sub $5k primes, makes me want to get the Rokinon Cine DS or SLR Magics,
rather than the Xeens or the CN Es. It's that law of diminishing returns. I can always rent better glass for those rare shoots where I have ACs
and clients who want the absolute best image.
Of course if you are renting or buying high end Zeiss or Cooke Primes, significant difference between those and still lenses in image quality but in the low end, not so much.
Canon EF mount is pretty much done. The 3rd party manufacturers may pick up some slack but Sigma just announced that they're done with the DSLR's. So, hope lies with the new mirrorless cameras and lenses made for them. Canon's 28-70 F2 got great reviews and one expects 70-135 (if the rumors are legitimate) to be in the same class.
PS. This doesn't mean Canon shouldn't adapt them for the video use a la Sony but that's likely to be further down the road.
I have the latest Sigma 70-200/2.8 sports zoom. Autofocus speed was decent- the camera would lose objects (cars- object tracking) rather than the lens not keeping up (camera "jumping" to another car), but did not test the Sigma against the Canon for autofocus. Canon 18-80 ended up being primary lens, with Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 when I wanted a different look.
However I mostly used "focus assist" as opposed to autofocus- got to really appreciate those near and far markers.
I was curious about adding Dandelion chips to manual focus lenses, see if they actually work with focus assist- until last week. Just sold the C300M2.
cpreston
Veteran
I was trying to use Dandelion chips for my Canon cameras to adapt some old M42 lenses. It is real hit and miss. The autofocus calculation for the manual focus depends on the iris. Some of the chips allow you to tell the camera the f stop. I finally found one chip that would allow me to set the iris input on my C300 MKII and it was somewhat useful. Strangely, I have two C300 MKII's and the other C300 MKII would not register the chip at all.