matt s.
Veteran
Thats a great idea add the 16-35...it will add to your collection of lenses to change to on your handheld run and gun whilst your missing shots
Thanks for all of your positive and constructive comments.
C100: Extreme Lens Frustrations
- Thread starter BeeHop
- Start date
Thanks for all of your positive and constructive comments.
indiawilds
Veteran
Technically it is not an easy task to create a zoom lens from wide to medium tele. That is the reason Canon created the CN-E 30-105 T2.8 L at close to 20k usd. Else, it would have created a 24-105 version in the cinema series.
If ultra wide angle zoom is needed then Canon has a CN-E 14.5-60mm T2.6 lens.
I can't visualise shooting a person in ultra-wide angle unless I want to make a caricature out of him/her.
For run-n-gun documentary situations I find that by being very close to the subject, I am influencing the behaviour of the people. They are conscious. I don't like that. I just want to be documenting without influencing/modifying/changing their behaviour. Ofcourse, there are people who coach their subjects as to how to behave, stage manage events etc. Anyway that is a discussion for another day. So to not influence behaviour and remain as a silent observer, I don't like going too close. Hence I move away and film from the longer focal length of the 24-105. The 105mm is good for that. Even with the 105mm focal length, subjects can be conscious. I was shooting a sports documentary for HBO. An athlete failed to create the meet record despite winning the gold. She was crying. Instead of the 70-200 f2.8 II, I was shooting with the 24-105 at the 105mm. She became conscious of my presence and what I got is not authentic behaviour. Next time I will be more cautious and will use a longer focal length.
I have come up from a wildlife photography background. So every turn I visualise where the tiger/ leopard would be and which lens would be better. For a change, if one treats his subjects like wild animals who would not tolerate close approach, at least for a few days, then that discipline will help in impacting the shooting skills, for the better. Sorry for sounding preachy, however these days we have become more gear centric.
If ultra wide angle zoom is needed then Canon has a CN-E 14.5-60mm T2.6 lens.
I can't visualise shooting a person in ultra-wide angle unless I want to make a caricature out of him/her.
For run-n-gun documentary situations I find that by being very close to the subject, I am influencing the behaviour of the people. They are conscious. I don't like that. I just want to be documenting without influencing/modifying/changing their behaviour. Ofcourse, there are people who coach their subjects as to how to behave, stage manage events etc. Anyway that is a discussion for another day. So to not influence behaviour and remain as a silent observer, I don't like going too close. Hence I move away and film from the longer focal length of the 24-105. The 105mm is good for that. Even with the 105mm focal length, subjects can be conscious. I was shooting a sports documentary for HBO. An athlete failed to create the meet record despite winning the gold. She was crying. Instead of the 70-200 f2.8 II, I was shooting with the 24-105 at the 105mm. She became conscious of my presence and what I got is not authentic behaviour. Next time I will be more cautious and will use a longer focal length.
I have come up from a wildlife photography background. So every turn I visualise where the tiger/ leopard would be and which lens would be better. For a change, if one treats his subjects like wild animals who would not tolerate close approach, at least for a few days, then that discipline will help in impacting the shooting skills, for the better. Sorry for sounding preachy, however these days we have become more gear centric.
That's why one needs ninja skills. And really, the complaint here is that the 24-105 is not wide enough, so if you're running in for a closeup, well, you could have just stayed back and zoomed in tighter. And if you have to move back further to get the shot since your lens isn't wide enough, then you are probably disrupting things less by being further away.
The point I was making before is that Canon have given us the 24-105 to keep us away from the temptation of filming people with an unflattering extra wide lens. Meanwhile, Sony has you shooting all kinds of bad looking distortion. That's how it works, Sony gives you what you think you want, and Canon gives you what you actually need. Consider 4K Raw; a lot of people think they want it until they have to deal with the workflow, while Canon gives you a lower quality perfect for broadcast codec on the original C300 that gets you hired.
And just because Birdman could pull off a 16mm closeup doesn't mean you should try it at home.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I just did a two week shoot with the C100, Ninja Blade and mainly the 18-135 STM IS, although I used a the 10-18 STM IS for a few shots and a Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 for a few shots. The 18-135 STM IS is a decent run and gun lens. Almost all of the shoot was exteriors, run and gun and the focal length is well suited to run and gun shooting. I shot everything at 5.6 that I could with a Tiffen Variable ND and the images overall look good. The focus by wire is obnoxious when trying to hit marks or doing controlled rack focus. The build is a bit flimsy but I try to be easy on my gear and not trash it so that's okay. Working with our actors, I was mostly in the 35-85mm range but shooting b-roll of trains, buses and subways (video is for a transit authority), I used 18mm quite a bit as well as 135mm quite a bit. For the money, I can't complain, although I would buy a reasonable size and weight 18-80 STM IS 2.8 in a heartbeat, even if it was $2k. For a lot of what I shoot, 24mm is not wide enough with a S35 sensor although it is plenty wide on a FF sensor. I agree that especially with the shoulder rig, Zacuto grip re-locator, Ninja Blade, HDMI cable, arms, etc. the C100 is not an ideal run and gun camera. The director kept referring to it as the "Praying Mantis" that I sit on my shoulder. I would rather use the new Panasonic DVX100 4k camera for a shoot like this but I only rarely shoot run and gun so I make the C100 work for this client.
cookinghusband
Well-known member
Scott F
Pug Life
So you're assuming that everyone here is filming "people" 100% of the time with this (or any) lenses? (But LOL, "don't try this at home!")
OP, I'm with you in your sentiment that the 24-105 in question is not very good. (I would call it good, not great) As I mentioned, if I could go back in time, I would not have purchased it. And yes, it is kind of a head-scratcher why they bundle it with the C100. *And* 300? wow....
So if your best course of attack is to switch cameras, so be it & best of luck.
cpreston
Veteran
If your primary concern is that the camera doesn't have a decent, cheap, fixed aperture lens with a range that can accommodate almost any shooting situation, you are just looking at the wrong style of camera. All of the camera manufacturers have a separate line of cameras that will better fit your needs. But, if you are looking to match a large chip cinema style camera with a cheap ENG style lens, it's just not going to happen.
Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 [FONT=arial, sans-serif]nearly got it right, except for the extreme barrel distortion on the wide end.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]I have faith Canon will come out with something soon like the 18-135 but is with a constant aperture. The C100/300's needs a complimentary video lens opposed to caring round a bag of stills lenses [/FONT]
rogar-Happy(DBG):
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]I have faith Canon will come out with something soon like the 18-135 but is with a constant aperture. The C100/300's needs a complimentary video lens opposed to caring round a bag of stills lenses [/FONT]
rogar-Happy(DBG):Its not personal matt. My wife sometimes calls me a grumpy winger so i probably wrote that when i was a tad grumpy. Lets be friends matt s.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Well… Maybe, but not really. The 24-105 was designed as a still lens optimized for full frame film or sensor(24x36). Shooting "video" on a s35 sensor with it was NEVER part of the equation or even thought about back then, I'm sure.
I really like it on FF, but I agree with most that it isn't quite wide enough on s35. And despite being labeled as constant aperture F4 and some doing tests and "proving" that it is, it isn't. You can show me your personal tests and waveforms all day long, by my personal experience and images prove otherwise to me.
Run&Gun
Veteran
They did one step better, the 17-120 Cine Servo. Yes, it's about $10K more and there is some "iris ramping", but just like the old saying, "with enough time and money almost anything is possible".
Im sure if they made that 17-120 at f4 without a zero zoom it could be quite affordable.
The beauty of the C100 (for me) is that it can be used run-and-gun OR you can mod it out to be something more.
The 18-135 is probably the best lens if it's the *only* lens you want to shoot with.
But why buy a C100 if you only want one lens? If you want something "all-in one," go out and buy or rent a prosumer level camcorder. There are a plethora to choose from. The Canon XF models are great.
I can take my C100 out and get pretty decent footage with only an 18-135 or a 24-105 lens using AVCHD, or I can use it on a shoot with a Ninja Blade, bring my lens bag, and get footage that blows my clients away, using 3 different lenses (depending on the shot setup) and ProRes.
Even for run-and gun, it takes me 20 seconds to hot swap out a lens.
I wouldn't buy or use a C100 if I never planned on swapping lenses or otherwise using it in its bare minimum capacity.
The 18-135 is probably the best lens if it's the *only* lens you want to shoot with.
But why buy a C100 if you only want one lens? If you want something "all-in one," go out and buy or rent a prosumer level camcorder. There are a plethora to choose from. The Canon XF models are great.
I can take my C100 out and get pretty decent footage with only an 18-135 or a 24-105 lens using AVCHD, or I can use it on a shoot with a Ninja Blade, bring my lens bag, and get footage that blows my clients away, using 3 different lenses (depending on the shot setup) and ProRes.
Even for run-and gun, it takes me 20 seconds to hot swap out a lens.
I wouldn't buy or use a C100 if I never planned on swapping lenses or otherwise using it in its bare minimum capacity.
Yes totally agree. I get lovely shallow depth of field interviews and incidental shots, it really is great. I have even recorded on AVCHD on occasions - converted to ProRes for a broadcast grade and its held up great, nobody noticed. But i do shoot ProRes HQ most of the time.
The main thing I'm pointing out is the only current lens thats practical for observational run n gun is the variable 18-135. And in my opinion its not up to the task. Try zooming and watch yr aperture flicker (even held at constant f5.6 even with Iris correction in camera) Now if you don't mind a slow lens and with aperture flicker then great. But its just not professional enough to compliment the other lenses.
I see your point, but I think you're chasing something that doesn't really exist, at least not at the C100 price point. If I was slinging a camera for a news crew, for example, I wouldn't use a C100. I'd use a an XF or some other equivalent camcorder. I mean, you *could* use a C100 for that type of work, but you likely won't get the results you're looking for, if it's something where pausing to do a lens swap might impact your end result.
That said, I know tons of folks who use the C100 for wedding videography, and they swear by it. That kind of work can be run-and-gun as you get. They all bring at least three different lenses to their jobs to cover the bases, and I never hear them complain about it. Usually the opposite.
That said, I know tons of folks who use the C100 for wedding videography, and they swear by it. That kind of work can be run-and-gun as you get. They all bring at least three different lenses to their jobs to cover the bases, and I never hear them complain about it. Usually the opposite.
in the past i shot a 5 person music group in a average sized room. I used the 17-55 f2.8 because a nice shallow look was required. When back in post the Director asked "why didnt you get any close ups and reactions etc. Well the discussion of lenses came up and once I explained, he rolled his eyes and understood coz there was no time for lens change as we didnt want to miss any emotional scenes.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
due to the length of the canon lens mount sony e-mount lenses will never fit a canon mount
Careful what you wish for.
Someone mentioned that the grass is greener.
What they didn't say is that the turds are bigger.
The FS7 is an utterly different beast to the Canon C. If I was to sum it up, I'd say it can produce lovely results - but it's almost entirely contingent on your abilities with Davinci Resolve. I sometimes miss the ready-out-of-the-box-ness of Caonon WDR.
Also, re the 18-105. It's a significant compromise. Both Sony and Canon have got this wrong so far.