If you could only have three lenses for the C300...

[philiplipetz]

Shane Hulbert in his recent small theater screen on his Canon 1DC short mentioned that he like using tilt shift lenses for selective focus and fake shallow DOF shots, of course he is the guy that started the shallow DOR video craze.

Do you use your T/S lenses for video very often, dustylense? I'm curious about the practical applications for them in motion picture. I mean, I know about the "fake miniature" look that was so in vogue a couple years ago, but what are some other uses that you like to use those lenses for?

Would love to see an example or two if you have them. Thanks!

 

[Pelican]

I do a wide variety of work, but mostly instructional videos, and some promo work for the college. If I go hand held, I use the tokina 11-16, and if I do interviews I'll go the with a 50 f1.4.
But if I'm doing a variety of Medium and semi-wide.. ?
I was trying to find out users preference to both quality of the lens, and which is more the swiss army knife, kind of the nifty-50 of the C300?

 

[jimagine]

Shane Hulbert in his recent small theater screen on his Canon 1DC short mentioned that he like using tilt shift lenses for selective focus and fake shallow DOF shots, of course he is the guy that started the shallow DOR video craze.

You can't really blame/credit one person for that.

For instance, we were the first people to shoot 35mm SLR primes on the original P&S Mini35 mounted to a Canon video camera 10 years ago.
And that rig cost a lot more than a C300.

 

[Dave ©]

Assuming your getting the canon mount the 17-40 is parfocal and so is the 70-200. Throw in a fast 50 and supplement as you go.

Can't speak for the 17-40 but the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is not parfocal. Awesome lens but not parfocal. Are you talking about a different brand?

 

[nigelbb]

Can't speak for the 17-40 but the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is not parfocal. Awesome lens but not parfocal. Are you talking about a different brand?

Thanks for confirming this I was starting to think that there was something wrong with my 70-200mm F/2.8L II. I have seen several places where they quote this lens as being parfocal & it most definitely is not whether I use it on the C300 or my 5D3.

This lens is far & away the best lens that I own & if it wasn't so damn heavy & if I didn't have to stand so damn far back (especially with C300) I would use it all the time. I am consistently surprised looking at shots done with this lens as they stand out so much. It resolves so much more detail & the whole look colour & everything is just right. I own plenty of other decent lenses (50mm F/1.2L, 24-70mm F/2.8L, 24-105mm F/4L) but non except possibly the 135mm F/2L gives anything like the same image quality. I would be really interested to see if the new mega-priced 24-70mm F/2.8L II also has the same magic clarity.

 

[maarek]

Shane Hulbert in his recent small theater screen on his Canon 1DC short mentioned that he like using tilt shift lenses for selective focus and fake shallow DOF shots, of course he is the guy that started the shallow DOR video craze.

Shane the guy started it? Vincent Laforet was the first guy to shoot on the 5dmarkII and really get it publicity.

 

[philiplipetz]

Vincent LaForet did the first and sold it to indies and Shane Hulbert sold it as a tool for financially significant filmmaking.

 

[Dave ©]

This lens is far & away the best lens that I own & if it wasn't so damn heavy & if I didn't have to stand so damn far back (especially with C300) I would use it all the time. I am consistently surprised looking at shots done with this lens as they stand out so much. It resolves so much more detail & the whole look colour & everything is just right.

Same here. But it is still my go-to lens for most scenarios. Just gorgeous!

I own plenty of other decent lenses (50mm F/1.2L, 24-70mm F/2.8L, 24-105mm F/4L) but non except possibly the 135mm F/2L gives anything like the same image quality.

Given that you have the 70-200, how often do you actually use your 135? I've never used it but see beautiful images and hear rave reviews. At that same time, I hear that "it's the best lens that nobody uses."

I would be really interested to see if the new mega-priced 24-70mm F/2.8L II also has the same magic clarity.

My 24-70 II should finally arrive later this week. I'm hoping that the image is as good as the 70-200 II. If it does, I will be a very, very happy man, even without IS on the 24-70. I definitely plan to do some side-by-side shooting to compare the two lenses. I sold my 24-70 I awhile back so I can't do any I vs II comparisons. From what I'm seeing and hearing, I expect to love the 24-70 II.

 

[Erik Naso]

Can't speak for the 17-40 but the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is not parfocal. Awesome lens but not parfocal. Are you talking about a different brand?

Im talking about the 70-200 F4 L non IS. Its much lighter than the F2.8 and super sharp. If you dont need the speed this is a winner!

 

[Dave ©]

^ Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[nigelbb]

Given that you have the 70-200, how often do you actually use your 135? I've never used it but see beautiful images and hear rave reviews. At that same time, I hear that "it's the best lens that nobody uses."

I bought the 135mm before the 70-200mm but now hardly ever use it basically because the big zoom lens does gives an image that is just as good but has the convenience of the zoom. The 135mm is lighter but if I have to stand back in order to get the subject framed properly at 70mm then it's even more true with the fixed lens. If I were still just using the 5D2 then perhaps I would use the 135mm F/2 more for that extra stop of light but as it is I am using the C300 & 5D3 so the extra stop is not so important.

My 24-70 II should finally arrive later this week. I'm hoping that the image is as good as the 70-200 II. If it does, I will be a very, very happy man, even without IS on the 24-70. I definitely plan to do some side-by-side shooting to compare the two lenses. I sold my 24-70 I awhile back so I can't do any I vs II comparisons. From what I'm seeing and hearing, I expect to love the 24-70 II.

I would really love to here your experiences. I can't believe that the 24-70mm V2 is more expensive than the 70-200mm F/2.8L USM IS II & doesn't even have IS. However if it really is that much better I could always sell my 24-70mm V1 as the old version is now selling at a premium & I would probably get what I paid for it so could sell it & put the proceeds towards a 25-70mm V2.

 

[Dave ©]

Ooh...check out this thread. Two new lenses coming from Canon that look very promising!