So I currently own a full rokinon prime set and plan to possibly purchase the Canon C200. I want a good set of lenses for short film purpose for the DPAF. I was looking at the sigma 18-35 and 50-100mm art lenses. I plan to use the 18-35 with the c200 on a Ronin M-X gimbal as well. Then eventually add the 70-200mm 2.8 II to complete my set. I am open to other recommendations.
C200: Lens options for DPAF
- Thread starter peter917
- Start date
Is is a good place to start:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...r-C200&p=1986716549&viewfull=1#post1986716549
I am still stuck on what to get. Trying to get rid of my Rokinon Cine Ds Primes to invest in some good glass that will benefit from the auto focus. I'm torn between the Sigma 18-35mm and the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 iii. The price gap is huge and I know I want the Canon 70-200mm eventually as well. My biggest concern is color matching and mixing glass up. I'd prefer all one brand but it seems a lot of the sigma zooms are hit and miss and I am not heading great things about the upcoming 24-70 f2.8 from Sigma.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I agree with cpreston, the 50-100 is a flawed lens design from what I have seen and tried with playing with it at a dealer. You would want to stick with one brand if color matching is a concern for you. Perosnally, for still lenses, I say avoid third party, they have poor resale value and while there are a few superstar third party lenses like the Sigma 18-35 1.8, overall, they are subpar when compared to Canon EF and EF-S lenses. For Cine lenses, it's the opposite. While the Canon Cine lenses are great, there are tons of other third party choices that are also outstanding. Since you want to use DPAF, I would stick with Canon personally. I have not used the 16-35 VIIII but generally, that lens is expensive and considered worth it, it's a very nice piece of glass. The 70-200 2.8 IS II, is, of course, an amazing lens, my favorite lens I own and an outstanding value at $2k. I team mine with the 17-55 2.8 IS. Image quality is great but the 17-55 2.8 IS is not an STM lens so DPAF with it, for me, is slow to respond and a but rough when compared to my STM lenses. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is also not an STM lens but it doesn't matter, focusing is smooth and fast on the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Unfortunately there is no mid range STM zoom that is fast, IMHO, Canon needs to rework the 17-55 2.8 IS into the 17-80 2.8 STM IS and sell it for $1,500.00 or even $2,000.00 and it would sell a lot.
I have been testing the CN-E 18-80 T4.4 and the upcoming CN-E 70-200 T4.4 and they are great lenses. But relatively large, front heavy and expensive on the C200. I would only buy them if you need servo zoom. If you don't, still lenses save you so much weight and expense but you cannot record usable zooms with them and they are not parfocal, whereas the CN-E zooms are, although with DPAF, in a way, does parfocal really matter that much anymore? Just depends on your shooting style.
I have been testing the CN-E 18-80 T4.4 and the upcoming CN-E 70-200 T4.4 and they are great lenses. But relatively large, front heavy and expensive on the C200. I would only buy them if you need servo zoom. If you don't, still lenses save you so much weight and expense but you cannot record usable zooms with them and they are not parfocal, whereas the CN-E zooms are, although with DPAF, in a way, does parfocal really matter that much anymore? Just depends on your shooting style.
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice! Id really prefer to only spend 3k total on a 3 lense set. Thats why its so hard to make a decision.
The Ideal setup would be the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 III, 24-70mm f2.8 II, and Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS II. That I feel would cover everything. I plan to do Doc, Wedding, Short and Feature work with this camera. So I am trying to get the best kit I can have within a decent budget range. Hoping to get 1800-2k for my set of 5 Rokinon Cine DS to help fund the new lenses. I am open to more budget options as well.
The Ideal setup would be the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 III, 24-70mm f2.8 II, and Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS II. That I feel would cover everything. I plan to do Doc, Wedding, Short and Feature work with this camera. So I am trying to get the best kit I can have within a decent budget range. Hoping to get 1800-2k for my set of 5 Rokinon Cine DS to help fund the new lenses. I am open to more budget options as well.
Last edited:
cpreston
Veteran
You can't go wrong with the newest f/2.8L zooms. All look as good as primes and have decent AF for DPAF.
cpreston
Veteran
I guess the 18-35 Sigma, the 50 f/1.8 stm, and the 85 f/1.8.
Sigma is the only one really making fast zooms for ef/s. I'm not a fan of the 17-55 f/2.8 Canon due to the noticeable vignetting, the first generation IS, and the zoom. The Sigma 50-100 is a problem solver, but it is not a general lens. The problem with Canon is that all of their good phot glass goes to full frame cameras which means that you are paying for a much bigger lens than is needed.
I have the same delima.
I own a full Contax Zeus kit that has amazing character and incredible IQ but I can't take advantage of the DPAF.
I feel like a lot of the Canon Glass doesn't have that wow factor the Contax do.
Also I feel like it's a waste to buy full frame Glass that will never be used to their full potential. And I'm using Glass that is unecessarily big for the sensor size.
Side note: I wish Canon would build out an entire small prime kit with IS to match the 24mm 2.8 IS, 28mm 2.8 IS, and 35mm 2 IS. A 50mm 2 IS and 85mm 2 IS would be great and they could all be the same small size.
I own a full Contax Zeus kit that has amazing character and incredible IQ but I can't take advantage of the DPAF.
I feel like a lot of the Canon Glass doesn't have that wow factor the Contax do.
Also I feel like it's a waste to buy full frame Glass that will never be used to their full potential. And I'm using Glass that is unecessarily big for the sensor size.
Side note: I wish Canon would build out an entire small prime kit with IS to match the 24mm 2.8 IS, 28mm 2.8 IS, and 35mm 2 IS. A 50mm 2 IS and 85mm 2 IS would be great and they could all be the same small size.
FWIW... I use/interchange my lenses between a Canon 24-105, Canon 70-200, Tokina 11-16, and Tamron 24-70 on all my shorts. I can personally tell which lens was used when watching played back footage, but the average viewer can't. I think your color matching worries are probably not needed.
Last edited:
control4userguy
Well-known member
? I have not had any issues with AF on Sigma 24-105 Art.
After purchasing the c200, I sold all of my sigma glass because the autofocus wasn't consistent with Canon's and it seemed as if I wasn't getting the most out of my lens.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Do you really need both of those lenses on the wider end?
Only you will know for sure, but I find that the difference with 35mm to 70mm isn't really that much of a big deal, and you would probably be okay with just the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm for almost everything. (And maybe keep a cheap 18-200mm "emergency" lens if you're really in those unpredictable situations.)
And on the other hand, some find that 24-70mm is all they will ever need.
Only you will know for sure, but I find that the difference with 35mm to 70mm isn't really that much of a big deal, and you would probably be okay with just the 16-35mm and the 70-200mm for almost everything. (And maybe keep a cheap 18-200mm "emergency" lens if you're really in those unpredictable situations.)
And on the other hand, some find that 24-70mm is all they will ever need.
I do not have it yet, but I loved the c100 Mkii so I am fairly sure I will love this camera. I am thinking about what you said and either getting just the 16-35 or the 24-70. I may go with the wider one and then throw in a 70-200 down the road. Crop wise the 16-35 comes out to about 24-50mm. Is the III really much better than the II in terms of quality and Auto focus with the DPAF?