C100: Lens Choice for Canon C100

P

PhotoScout

Member
Looking at one of the following lenses for my Canon C100

1. EFS 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM w/PZ-E1 Power Zoom
2. EF 16-35mm f/2.8
3. EF 24-105mm f/4
4. EFS 17-55mm f/2.8

Currently I am borrowing an 18-135mm STM, which I like because it is extremely lightweight and that I don't have to change lenses.
The cons of the lens are the lack of ability to smoothly zoom, the quality of the glass, and lack of a fixed aperture.

Normally, when I am out on a job, I have my 1DX with me including an EF 50mm 1.8, EF 24-70mm 2.8 & EF 70-200mm 2.8.
It would be nice to have a lens to work on both cameras, but not necessary.

I've been wondering if I should get a wide-angle lens to compliment my current line-up, for use on both my 1DX and C100, or if I should get a zoom lens, to always keep on the C100 without changing lenses.

I have been pleased with the C100's low-light ability, so the 3.5-5.6 is not as much trouble as I would have perviously thought.

I am very intrigued by the new 18-135 USM with the PZ-E1 Power Zoom. I've also heard that they might be releasing a full-frame version of this lens come August.

General thoughts?
 
It might give us the information needed to make an intelligent recommendation if you wrote something about what you mostly shoot. Recommending lenses in a vacuum is meaningless. I shoot EPK and BTS on TV shows and features. My lens needs are completely different than someone who shoots indie films or weddings. The general recommendation is to buy the best quality, fastest lenses you can afford. The 18-135 STM IS came with my C100 as a package and it is used on my camera at least 50% of the time because it is the perfect zoom range for what I shoot, it's light and the variable aperture is not usually a big deal on exteriors, I like to run lenses in their optical sweet spot, which for that lens would be F7.1 to F8, if the lighting is adequate. FWIW, I bought the 10-18 STM IS for a specific project, shooting actors driving in a small car (A Golf) and it worked out great for that one shoot. That said, since then, I have not used it once. For my needs, 18mm on the S35 sensor is wide enough for 95% of my shoots.

I have some new projects coming up that will be shooting weeks of EPK on sets at Warner Bros and for those shoots, the 18-135 STM IS is going to be too slow, I don't like boosting ISO past 1250 so it will be the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS II. 70-200 2.8 is a great interview lens and also good for sniping shots from across a crowded set. While not an STM lens, the 70-200 2.8 IS II focuses surprisingly quickly and smoothly with DPAF. Personally, I am a prime guy, I love my primes more than any other affordable lenses (28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8) but for a lot of my work, primes are too limiting, I can rarely get in the perfect position for a given focal length so zooms are necessary. But for value, speed, sharpness and overall cost, primes rule. My $330.00 85mm 1.8 is as sharp or sharper than the $2,000.00 70-200 2.8 IS II. But the 70-200 2.8 IS II lets me get shots I could never capture with just the 85mm. So post what you are shooting mostly and then we can make some recommendations.
 
Right, forgot to mention that. My work consists of live-event coverage "Run N Gun" video journalism, documentaries and the sort.
Situations can sometimes be unpredictable with changing variables.
 
So do you already own or have access to an EF 50mm 1.8, EF 24-70mm 2.8 & EF 70-200mm 2.8? Those will all work well with the C100.
 
Yes, I already have those 3 lenses. My 24-70 spends the most time on my 1DX and occasionally is used on my C100, when the 1DX is not needed (rare instances) The 50mm 1.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 are rarely mounted on the C100.
 
PhotoScout said:
Yes, I already have those 3 lenses. My 24-70 spends the most time on my 1DX and occasionally is used on my C100, when the 1DX is not needed (rare instances) The 50mm 1.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 are rarely mounted on the C100.
Click to expand...

Well your mileage may vary, but I can't think of a better lens than the 70-200 on the c100 for certain types of shots. My standard lens selection is the tokina 11-17mm for super wides, the 17-55 2.8 for walking around, the 70-200mm for when i need to be a bit far away, and the 50mm 1.8 for some pizazz now and then.

You could collapse a lot of those into the 24-105 F/4, but I find that a wholly drab, utilitarian and unremarkable lens. For my money, if you're going to use the 24-105, you may as well be using a smaller sensor camera, like the XF300.
 
drummondb said:
Well your mileage may vary, but I can't think of a better lens than the 70-200 on the c100 for certain types of shots. My standard lens selection is the tokina 11-17mm for super wides, the 17-55 2.8 for walking around, the 70-200mm for when i need to be a bit far away, and the 50mm 1.8 for some pizazz now and then.

You could collapse a lot of those into the 24-105 F/4, but I find that a wholly drab, utilitarian and unremarkable lens. For my money, if you're going to use the 24-105, you may as well be using a smaller sensor camera, like the XF300.
Click to expand...

So it sounds like you would advocate filling the wide end with either the EFS 17-55 f.2.8 or EF 16-35 f/2.8?
 
17-55 2.8 would be my vote. 24-105 is an awful lens, I have shot with it a lot and remain distinctly unimpressed with everything about it. 24mm on S35 isn't wide at all either, whereas 17-18mm is about as wide as you want to go when shooting people. Any wider and you get edge distortion that is unflattering. I love the range of the 18-135 STM IS but if you shoot interiors a lot, it's too slow. 17-55 is the right speed but not quite long enough, I wish it was 17-85mm, but that's what's great about the new 18-80 Canon lens, it is the perfect range, not quite as fast as we need but fast enough for most situations and a servo zoom is really handy for run and gun work. If you've got $5k plus to spend, get the new 18-80 in September but if not, my vote would be the 17-55mm 2.8. 16mm-35mm, for me, is too limited range, it's just really wide or sort of wide-ish. At least the 17-55 goes from pretty wide to moderate tele on an S35 imager.
 
I bought the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS for both Nikon and Canon.

I bought the Canon version on ebay for $269 as a direct import from a US company. It still had a 1 year Sigma International warranty.

It was rated as the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100 by DxO, so it is a pretty great lens and an incredible bargain. I use it wide open for music events in place of a 24-70 2.8 on my crop cameras. It does vignette a bit wide open.

In addition to the 24-70 2.8 I I and 70-200 2.8 I I pair, I just purchased a Canon 24-70 4.0 IS and a 70-200 4.0 IS as a more casual/ lighter kit. (I had the 4.0 non-IS for many years. )

The 24-70 4.0 in particular is supposed to be a much better lens than the 24-105 4.0, which I have now. I haven't had a chance to test the 24-70 yet, I just opened the box yesterday, but I will probably sell my 24-105.

I bought then on sale from Canon Refurbished, it was about $635+ for the 24-70, and $869 for the 70-200 4.0 ID. That is a pretty good price for a zoom set that can cover almost everything you need for full frame. It is still a little long at 24mm for the crop camera- that is where the Sigma 17-50 2.8 comes in.

Mostly I am excited about the two 4.0 zooms. Smaller/ reasonable size and weight, constant aperture, and "second tier" quality, just a step down from the 24-70 2.8 II,, 70-200 2.8 II pair.

I mostly shoot zooms. I have added the 24 mm 2.8 Pancake (APS-C), 40 mm 2.8 Pancake, and 50 mm 1.8 STM for about $300+ total refurbished or used
Plus the 85 1.8 for about $285. That is pretty much it for my primes,

I am very happy with that kit for my Canon 7DII and 5DIII. I also plan to use the same kit on my Sony and Panasonic cameras for both stills & video via adapters.

Good luck!
 
Last edited:
I use the 24-105 the most for general shots, but can't wait to replace it for most instances with the Canon 18-80 T/4.4. CanonRumors mentioned they're coming out with a new Canon 24-105 II pretty soon, so keep that in mind if considering that lens.
 
PhotoScout said:
So it sounds like you would advocate filling the wide end with either the EFS 17-55 f.2.8 or EF 16-35 f/2.8?
Click to expand...

I usually use the Canon 17-55 2.8 for wides with people. But I use the Tokina 11-16 for dramatic wide shots of landscapes and buildings. Also, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is a great, fast indoor wide for low-light situations.
 
By the sound of it, the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is desirable over the EF 16-35 f/2.8. Any reasons why? The EFS is about half the cost used, which is a plus (I assume it's lighter in weight as well), but it would be nice to have a lens which both my C100 and 1DX can use.
 
16-35 is built much better than the 17-55 as far as build quality. The 17-55 is kind of a junky, flimsy build, not terrible but not a high end feeling lens. But the focal range on the 16-35 relegates it to the realm of a specialty lens, whereas the 17-55 is more a general purpose lens. Horses for courses.
 
Good points. Leaning towards the EF-S right now. Before I pull the trigger on this, any other comparisons/thoughts on the EF 16-35 f/2.8 VS. EF-S 17-55 f/2.8? (If I get one of these lenses, I will be using them in conjunction with my 50mm f/1.8 & 70-200 f/2.8.
 
The 17-55 f/2.8 is far more useful than the 16-35. It is also cheaper. You could get buy for awhile with just the 17-55 and the other two lenses that you listed. I personally don't like the 17-55 and sold it awhile ago, but for quite awhile it was my most used lens until built up a larger lens selection and no longer had to rely on it. People will disparage the 17-55 because the focus and zoom rings are iffy, the build is suspect, the IS is a couple of generations old, the IQ isn't great, etc., but it still hits the sweet spot for zoom range and aperture on the Canon and it is better than the off brand competition.
 
puredrifting said:
I really, really wish Canon would build an L version of a 17-85mm 2.8 STM IS for $2k. I would be all over that.
Click to expand...
Fujinon has the 18-85mm T2.0 lens, which is about the same range but a whole stop faster than what you're wishing for. It's a bit more than $2k, but if you can stretch the budget a bit I'm sure you'd be all over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top