C100: Lens Quandary

scorsesefan

scorsesefan

Veteran
So I just picked up a Canon 17-55 and as (bad) luck would have it my Tamron 18-200 bit the dust (no aperture control).

In addition to the 17-55 I have a Canon 24-70 I 2.8 and a Rokinon 35mm 1.4.

I need a new all around zoom for outdoor shooting. Any recommendations between the Canon 24-105 vs. 18-135? I was thinking of selling the 24-70, but I do a lot of sit down talking head stuff and I was wondering if the 17-55 would suffice for this?

Thanks.
 
There are times during some interview scenarios/situations when you will likely find 55mm on the optically very good 17-55 F2.8 too short on reach. I certainly do.

Regarding your other question. I love my Canon 70-200mm F4 IS for when I need longer reach, especially outdoors. It's razor sharp and much lighter (plus much cheaper) than the legendary F2.8 II version - although either would be great lenses to have in your kit. If you do a lot of hand held work you'll appreciate its lightness for sure.
 
I hate my 24-105, it came free with the camera. It loses almost a half stop transmission loss when I zoom all the way in and Canon claims it's "within specs".

When you say documentary, I assume you mean the shooting besides sit down interviews? When I am running around the 24mm isn't wide enough. As to 105 not being tight enough, you can always walk in. But indoors, you usually can't walk back far enough.

I am in the market for a 17-55. When I saw Cartel Land and read the BTS interview, the main DP shot everything with that lens because that is the sweet range for when you have no idea as to what is happening next. And in docs, we do a lot of shooting of two people in the frame, so the 24 is never wide enough for me.
 
nedcam said:
I hate my 24-105, it came free with the camera. It loses almost a half stop transmission loss when I zoom all the way in and Canon claims it's "within specs".

When you say documentary, I assume you mean the shooting besides sit down interviews? When I am running around the 24mm isn't wide enough. As to 105 not being tight enough, you can always walk in. But indoors, you usually can't walk back far enough.

I am in the market for a 17-55. When I saw Cartel Land and read the BTS interview, the main DP shot everything with that lens because that is the sweet range for when you have no idea as to what is happening next. And in docs, we do a lot of shooting of two people in the frame, so the 24 is never wide enough for me.
Click to expand...

I too am going for a 17-55 for my own C100. The C100 we just got at work I ordered with the 24-105, seems good so far for the limited use I've given it shooting interviews in small conference rooms, but it'll be nice to compare it with the 17-55 when my own C100 arrives.
 
I am finding that the combo of the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 18-135 STI IS 3.5-5.6 is pretty great. We just shot three days on a golf course this week for a training promo for a class. Indoors, outdoors, small rooms up to huge vistas on the courses. Nasty low light fluorescent to blinding nuclear sun. We only lit the interviews, the rest was all available light. You cannot beat the 18-135 STM IS for exterior run and gun. You cannot beat the 17-55 2.8 for interior run and gun with lower light. The two together are a pretty good combo. We also had a second camera I was on with my 70-200 2.8 IS II. My second camera op brought is own 24-105, inexplicably the "standard" lens for S35 shooters. He quickly put it away after we would do setup after setup and I would ask him to be wider. He used my 18-135 STM IS and ended up liking it a LOT more than his 24-105. Take that for what it's worth but the 18-135 STM IS is a much more useful lens for most shooters. It's not constructed as well and perhaps a hair softer but it has better IS, the STM motor, is lighter, smaller and wider. No contest. I hate the 24-105, I have used it for years and never liked it, it's never been more than barely adequate.
 
Thanks, guys. I was leaning towards the 24-105 because it is an L lens but I think I'll go for the 18-135, which can be had for less. The 24-105 seems too long on the short end and not long enough on the long end. I would also like to keep my 24-70 for sit downs because as Andy mentioned I'm worried that the 17-55 may be a little short to find that sweet bokeh that you seem to hit at around 70mm... btw puredrifting is there a difference between the STM and non-STM versions of this lens besides stepped motor which I imagine would be better for video?
 
scorsesefan said:
Thanks, guys. I was leaning towards the 24-105 because it is an L lens but I think I'll go for the 18-135, which can be had for less. The 24-105 seems too long on the short end and not long enough on the long end. I would also like to keep my 24-70 for sit downs because as Andy mentioned I'm worried that the 17-55 may be a little short to find that sweet bokeh that you seem to hit at around 70mm... btw puredrifting is there a difference between the STM and non-STM versions of this lens besides stepped motor which I imagine would be better for video?
Click to expand...

To be honest, the 18-135 STM IS is one of Canon's most confusing lenses because they have made at least three and possibly four or five versions. One without STM, two, that I know of with the STM, they also introduced an even newer one last year than the one I have. This new one looks the same, except that it has the outlet for the PZ E1 controller, I think? I would try to get the STM IS version or the STM IS with the outlet for the PZ E1 version, which I am assuming is basically the same save for the addition of the servo outlet? Shop carefully and know what you are getting. Mine came in a package deal with my C100 MKI so it was a "white box" model. You can find both the white box models which may not have a US warranty (not sure?) or the retail boxed models. Make sure the version you buy has the U.S. warranty card if you are paying over about $350.00 for it. Canon doesn't seal their lens boxes and there are plenty of unscrupulous sellers who switch things out and sell gray market lenses in a U.S. box. The serial number on the U.S. warranty card should obviously match the serial number on the lens. For me, I would buy a white box, non U.S warranty version simply because they sell them really cheap and if the lens has major issues or dies and I cannot get it repaired in the U.S. by Canon, I'll throw it away and will buy another. Generally, my experience with gray market versus US market lenses has been pretty good. For cheap lenses I will consider gray market if the price is a lot lower than U.S. but only on cheap, sub $500.00 lenses. When I buy good lenses that cost thousands like my 70-200 2.8 IS II, I buy U.S. market only. But then again, how many times have you had to send a lens in for repair? For me, only once, for my Nikon 24-70 2.8. Other than that, I have had dozes of lenses over a few decades and generally lenses are amazingly reliable compared to cameras.
 
puredrifting said:
To be honest, the 18-135 STM IS is one of Canon's most confusing lenses because they have made at least three and possibly four or five versions. One without STM, two, that I know of with the STM, they also introduced an even newer one last year than the one I have. This new one looks the same, except that it has the outlet for the PZ E1 controller, I think? I would try to get the STM IS version or the STM IS with the outlet for the PZ E1 version, which I am assuming is basically the same save for the addition of the servo outlet? Shop carefully and know what you are getting. Mine came in a package deal with my C100 MKI so it was a "white box" model. You can find both the white box models which may not have a US warranty (not sure?) or the retail boxed models. Make sure the version you buy has the U.S. warranty card if you are paying over about $350.00 for it. Canon doesn't seal their lens boxes and there are plenty of unscrupulous sellers who switch things out and sell gray market lenses in a U.S. box. The serial number on the U.S. warranty card should obviously match the serial number on the lens. For me, I would buy a white box, non U.S warranty version simply because they sell them really cheap and if the lens has major issues or dies and I cannot get it repaired in the U.S. by Canon, I'll throw it away and will buy another. Generally, my experience with gray market versus US market lenses has been pretty good. For cheap lenses I will consider gray market if the price is a lot lower than U.S. but only on cheap, sub $500.00 lenses. When I buy good lenses that cost thousands like my 70-200 2.8 IS II, I buy U.S. market only. But then again, how many times have you had to send a lens in for repair? For me, only once, for my Nikon 24-70 2.8. Other than that, I have had dozes of lenses over a few decades and generally lenses are amazingly reliable compared to cameras.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for the advice. I will look for a STM version...
 
Funny, I should stumble on this thread. I have always talked highly of the 18-135 kit lens (over the Canon 24-105 MKI). I am giving it up today due to stiction in the zoom mechanism. Been there since new and has ruined many clips that required zoom. Sigma seems to have fixed the AF (C100) issues on Art lenses so going for the 24-105 f/4. Don't care for the Canon L 24-105 at all...
 
IMO, the 17-55 and the 24-70 are so close in focal range that it would make sense to sell one if you really want to expand your lens options with limited funds. I'd keep the 17-55 for the IS, the wider wide end, and like others have said, it's not hard to walk in a few feet to make up the difference between 55mm and 70mm.
 
drummondb said:
IMO, the 17-55 and the 24-70 are so close in focal range that it would make sense to sell one if you really want to expand your lens options with limited funds. I'd keep the 17-55 for the IS, the wider wide end, and like others have said, it's not hard to walk in a few feet to make up the difference between 55mm and 70mm.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of selling the 24-70 regardless of which zoom I pick up, but I do a lot of work in the medical field (mostly small examining rooms) and there usually isn't much room to move around. I just got the 17-55, so once I put it through the paces I should be able to make a more informed decision. I just kind of stumbled into a great deal with the 24-70, so there isn't so much pressure to recoup my cost.
 
@puredrifting or anyone who has used the 18-135. How is the manual focus on this lens? I had a focus by wire lens before and it was a little finicky.
 
scorsesefan said:
@puredrifting or anyone who has used the 18-135. How is the manual focus on this lens? I had a focus by wire lens before and it was a little finicky.
Click to expand...

The manual focus pretty terrible. The throw is dependent on how quickly you turn the focus ring. Turn it slowly and the it changes the focus slowly. It can take over 360 degrees to go from infinity to close focus if you are turning it slow enough. It's not as bad as some lenses I've seen though. I tried a Sony lens that would actually not change focus at all if you turned the focus ring too slowly. The 18-135 is fantastic as an auto focus lens, though.
 
cpreston said:
The manual focus pretty terrible. The throw is dependent on how quickly you turn the focus ring. Turn it slowly and the it changes the focus slowly. It can take over 360 degrees to go from infinity to close focus if you are turning it slow enough. It's not as bad as some lenses I've seen though. I tried a Sony lens that would actually not change focus at all if you turned the focus ring too slowly. The 18-135 is fantastic as an auto focus lens, though.
Click to expand...

I concur, it's a pretty dismal MF lens. Trying to do a crash zoom or rack focus is hilarious although you won't be laughing the whole time when you figure out doing either is nigh impossible.
 
What is manual focus? I think I heard my grandpa talking about that once. Or maybe it was my great grandpa.

I'm a fan of the Canon 24-105. The Canon 18-80 looks awesome.

I may add a 17-55 lens to my lineup at some point. Every now and then I'm on a shoot where it seems to be the perfect lens, so I can empathize those who like that lens, but for most of my jobs I prefer the 24-105.


nedcam said:
I am in the market for a 17-55. When I saw Cartel Land and read the BTS interview, the main DP shot everything with that lens because that is the sweet range for when you have no idea as to what is happening next. And in docs, we do a lot of shooting of two people in the frame, so the 24 is never wide enough for me.
Click to expand...
But when the insurgents you're documenting shoot you to death because you stepped too close to them with your 55mm lens, you'll have wished you could have been more inconspicuous at 105mm with that 24-105 lens. Matt Porwoll is a risk taker.

If you're shooting a wedding, or trying to get candids at an event (without needing to switch to the 70-200), those are other cases where you can't simply get closer.
 
I like the 24-105 focal length. I like the old style of slowly zooming in from the 105mm end to focus a bit more on the expressions. I hope to get the 18-80 when budget permits. At times you can use the 70-200 f2.8 with the 24-70 f2.8. I would not be too happy to let go the 24-70 f2.8

I was recently shooting a 78 year old Odissi music (a genre of classical music in India). You have to keep a minimum distance with the lady. That's what they are used to (out of reverence by students as well as privacy). I couldn't even put a lavalier. So it was all boom. So going extra wide ie. 24 mm or below is not an option in those situations.
 
Only a bit slower than the $23k canon zoom.

S35 does not need 1.8 to be shallow or record in the dark

You either work in situations where you need to cover live or you don't - if you don't then a couple of primes is golden

If you work those room shots range, from 18, half repeatable focus, par focality trump all other specs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top