C200: Lens options for DPAF

peter917 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The 16-35 mk III is an absolute amazing lens. I would go for it if I was you, spend more now and future proof. Its sharper and the autofocus is better than the II. As for the 70-200 "down the road", that lens should be a priority. It is my favorite lens and if you do any sort of event video, it will be the best lens you own. I have all the lenses you want and they are all great, but I mostly use the 16-35 and the 70-200. I only buy full frame as I shoot with a canon 5D iv and buying an apsc lens would mean I can't use it for photo with that camera.
 
I'm not sure about the real world differences between the II/III, but I would assume you may see more of a difference with AF performance than image quality on a video camera. You have to remember that these lenses are made for photography cameras that shoot extremely high resolution stills where the differences are much more apparent (especially since video compression exists).

My personal strategy is to have a super fast lens and a decent zoom for situations when I need to grab WS/MS/CUs very quickly (usually event coverage, weddings, run-and-gun stuff).

But it also depends on the camera. I don't think I've ever put a Canon lens on any of my BM cameras, but it would be a must for the C200 (and future cameras with improved DPAF technology).

---

If I was getting the C200, these would be my two lenses...a mixture of high-quality, speed and AF performance:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html (one of Canon's sharpest lenses ever made)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081813-REG/canon_9521b002_ef_24_105mm_f_3_5_5_6_is.html

This combo wouldn't work for everyone, but I know I could do most of my indoor stuff with the 35mm (interviews, office b-roll, etc.) and the zoom would be used mostly outside.

If I had to have a premium 'L' lens then I would replace the 35mm f/2 with the 1.4 II:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html

---

Some people live in a studio all day with amazing lighting and might only need a 24-70mm (even the f/4) and a nice macro.

Nature shooters might be breaking the bank with the 600mm and the 800mm.

A real estate/landscape guy could be looking around 14mm...etc.

You really have to see what's best for you and if you really work so much where you're just filming so many different things, you might have no choices but to own all kinds of lenses.

It seems like some guys here have $50K-$100K in glass, ha.
 
Last edited:
My basic kit on the C100/II is Tokina 11-17 II, Canon ef-s 17-55 2.8, and Canon 70-200 2.8 II. You could throw in the 50mm 1.8 STM for a fast, cheap, nice prime with great STM autofocus. I also have the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 and don't have ay issues with the DPAF on the C100 (though I'm not really the stressing the tracking aspect since the focus box doesn't move).

I think you should rent some lenses before diving in. I personally don't see the point of buying the Canon 16-35 or the 24-70 for a C-series. They are excellent lenses, but they are full frame, and many other, cheaper lenses deliver basically the same results on a crop sensor, like the C-series.

The 17-55 2.8 has been my default run-and-gun lens on all C100's for years. The build quality sucks, but it's much less expensive, is light, has IS, and the optics are L-series level. I have seen some vignetting in extreme cases, but it can be easily avoided. I think the 17-55 could replace both the 16-35 and the 24-70 on your list. You should really rent all three and test this yourself.
 
Last edited:
With Sony scheduled to announce a full frame (24x36mm) sensor camera, I am sure full frame sensor is likely to be more prevalent in the next few years. Ofcourse, that launch appears to be in the highend, things may change in the future. I am wondering when will Canon take the full frame sensor that it uses in DSLRs and create a video camera so that we don't have to deal with the artificial limitations of the DSLRs.
 
If I was just starting out with Canon lenses on a crop frame, I would probably get the 17-55 f/2.8 ef/s, 50 f/1.8 stm, and 18-135 stm. All of that is less than a grand and you should quickly figure out what holes you need to fill. For example, I realized I absolutely needed the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 after doing a couple of low light events.
 
Interesting discussion....

I've owned (and sold) the various Canon F2.8 wide zooms - they were ok on a crop body but not very good on FF
Ditto for their 14mm prime.

My present wide zooms are the 11-24mmF4L which I use for FF and on the C200 and the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM for the C200 and 100. The STM is ok optically, has IS, supports auto iris, and works for face focus on the C100. This is also true of the 18-135STM lens.

Other than that, I tend to use the 35F1.4MkII, anf 50F1.2 (sometimes the 85F1.2, but that is a bit long for me on super35). I've used the 70-200F2.8mkII but it is heavy and I prefer the primes.

Scoff if you will but the EFs lenses are flexible, light, support all the features and better than I expected optically.

Of all the above, the 11-24 is the worst for breathing - not really useable for FT AF.
 
I was also just looking at the recommended EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. How well would this match with a lens like canons L 100mm Macro and the 70-200mm? I hear the optics of this lens are great only issue is build quality and dust issues. My other concern is for cinematic and narrative work how is the 17-55? As narrative work is my primary focus but just don't want to get a ton of primes at the moment.
 
Does anyone have experience with the Canon 16-35 f4 IS USM - in particular the autofocus? The Canon 18-55 autofocus is not all I'd like - slow and hunts for focus a lot.
 
This is a video (not mine) filmed entirely with the 16-35mm f/4 with the 1DX Mark II all in AF.

I've always had a feeling the DPAF works better on the DSLRs than the cinema cameras, but take it for what it's worth...

https://vimeo.com/158004101
 
Dmbrown said:
For those of you using the Canon 16-35 f2.8 III for handheld work, is the lack of IS an issue?
Click to expand...

Coming from using an A7sII with a Sony 28-135 FE PZ Cine lens... I think it's is more stable using the C200 w/16-35iii just from an ergonomic stand point. I was never this stable with the A7sii - but that camera is hard to hold.
 
RE: Post #15
I run the Art lens along side the Canon 11-24 and the 70-210 II IS and all I've ever noticed is that the Sigma is a tick slower at settling-in on a subject. I shoot technical videos and I just started offering sports diagnostic video services. Trust me, if I couldn't hack it with the Sigma, it would kicked to the curb after the first action job.
 
Dmbrown said:
Does anyone have experience with the Canon 16-35 f4 IS USM - in particular the autofocus? The Canon 18-55 autofocus is not all I'd like - slow and hunts for focus a lot.
Click to expand...

I have shot with it a lot and have been very happy with it.

I had the 16-35 f/2.8L and 16-35 f/2.8L II before it. The 16-35 f/4 is sharper than both of those, especially corner to corner wide open. The IS on it is also very good for video.

The DPAF works very well. I have not noticed it hunting. I have used it with the C300, C300 Mark II, and the 1DXM2.

IS test with the 16-35 f/4 & C300 (all MF for this)

DPAF Test with C300 (Mark I) & 16-35 f/4

1DXM2 & 16-35 f/4 DPAF for some shots

The above is all personal work & testing. I have used it on many jobs as well. I have not tried the 16-35 f/2.8L III yet.

Here's one more - opening shots were with 16-35 f/4 and the 1DXM2. Bulk of other shots for the b-roll library with 16-35 f/4L and C300. On the latter, used the DPAF to acquire focus and then locked it in.
 
Last edited:
Would you say the f4 of the 16-35mm is a big compromise over the 2.8 of the 16-35mm III? I figure with the c200 and its low light ability that would compensate for the lack of it being a 2.8.
 
I just cant decide if selling all my rokinon is worth it. I have the 16mm 35mm 50mm 85mm and 135mm. Should i just add the sigma 18-35 for focus purpose and keep the rokinons? Im only gonna get 1800 if i sell the bundle which is like the price of one canon l series lens
 
I have all the Rokinons as well as the Sigma 18-35 art EF mount. I haven't had time to test the Sigma on my C200 but I've been shooting on Sony large sensor camcorders with it for 18 months. I love it and I didn't think I would love it as much. The image is sharp but not antiseptic. I would say it's better than most primes, and I dare say better than the Rokinons in a lot of ways. Only drawback, and this is also true of the Rokinons is that it doesn't have IS.
 
For general purpose use, I've always recommended the Tamron 24-70 2.8 with IS. I know it's not Canon glass, but for the price and focal range, it's pretty unbeatable, and the image quality is just a smidgen below the Canon 24-70 2.8. It stays on my C100 80% of the time. Outstanding build quality and weather-sealed as well. Pair it with your choice of wide and telephoto and you've got your bases covered.
 
Does anyone know how the new Tamron G2 lenses perform with DPAF? They make a 24-70, and a 70-200 that I'm really interested in.
 
I just shot dancers of all types for three days, using both the C300 MKII and the C200. Lenses were Canon 17-55 2.8 IS for A camera wide lock off and B-camera on a Dana Dolly using the Canon 18-135 STM IS. We shot hip hop, tap, and about half a dozen other dance styles, all on a gloss white on white BG, except the tap dancers were tapping on black gloss painted 1" plywood that was placed on the white wood epoxy dance floor. While the 18-135 ST IS was far from perfect, I was impressed with how much of the really fast and frantic dancers it did nail focus on. As long as the camera op gave it a contrast edge to work with, it did pretty well. Unfortunately some of the dancers wore hats and as you may or may not know, face tracking doesn't really like hats and or sunglasses. So for that dance, we switched over to just regular continuous auto focus and it did pretty well. An AC would have had a harder time trying to track what was happening as we had only the most basic blocking and none of the crew had seen what the dancers were going to do. All said, this shoot would have been much more challenging without DPAF and Face Tracking. Impressive performance. Shot some BTS with my 80D and even it's face tracking worked great. The key is STM lenses. The none STM lenses, mostly are slow to focus, other than the 70-200 2.8 IS II which is not STM but seems to track and focus pretty well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top