C100: Lens Quandary

Not intending to derail - has anyone rented any CINE lenses (Canon, Rokinon, Zeiss) in the 50-85mm range? Just wondering if it is worth it compared to my 70-200 2.8 mkII that usually looks really great at 85-100.
 
My take away from this thread is NONE of us agree on the right lens for our work because none of us do the same work, even within the same category. Weddings, documentary, BTS, narrative, event, we are all different and all obviously have different lenses. The 24-105, even though I hate it, does have better manual focus than the 18-135. The 24-105 is the most popular Canon EOS cinema camera lens, whenever I do shoots where more than one crew is present, that is the most used lens, followed by the 17-55 2.8 IS.
 
If you can find a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS, I think it's a great range and has a great look. I don't hear much about C100 shooters using it too often (as it is discontinued, I guess, and most seem to spring for the 70-200 Canon L stuff), but I do and I pair it with my Canon 17-55 2.8 and feel pretty comfortable with the range I can cover in most doc-style situations or talking head stuff (what I typically am doing). I got lucky and found someone pitching one pretty cheap on my local CL, but I see them from time to time on eBay, too. Even better if you can try it out and see, but it could be an option if you're looking to get rid of the 24-70 as a mate for the 17-55.
 
Jb2 said:
If you can find a used Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS, I think it's a great range and has a great look.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing about that lens and am intrigued. But Sigma made at least three versions of the 50-150, right? Two without OS, and one (the last version) that you have with OS.

I see some old online reviews that don't seem so impressed with the lens. Front focusing being a key complaint. Old-Sigma grindyness, too. But front focusing seems like less of an issue if you'd (i.e., I'd) mainly be using it on sticks for interviews...

Jb2 (and other 50-150 users), is there lots of variance in the different Sigma 50-150 models and units? Besides lacking OS, do the pre-OS versions of the lens perform OK? Is this the sort of lens that you'd buy off eBay or would you want to see and try it in person before picking one up?

Thanks,

Jim
 
Just want to add some love for the Canon 24-105. It's my go-to outdoor daytime lens, and it's never given me a problem. A little too slow for indoor work in my experience, unless you're just really well lit.

I'd keep my 24-70 if I were you.
 
I would like to keep the 24-70. Ideally I would have 1). 17-55 for indoor run n' gun 2). 24-70 for sit down intvs. 3). 24-105 for outdoor run n' gun. Hopefully I can fit all three into my budget...
 
scorsesefan said:
I would like to keep the 24-70. Ideally I would have 1). 17-55 for indoor run n' gun 2). 24-70 for sit down intvs. 3). 24-105 for outdoor run n' gun. Hopefully I can fit all three into my budget...
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a perfect combo, IMO. At some point I'd get some kind of 70-200. I picked a used Canon 70-200 2.8 (non IS) up off ebay about a year ago for a reasonable price. It's a great lens, but I have to admit I rarely use it. Every now and then I need extra reach for a closeup from the other side of the room or across a long table or whatnot and I bust it out. I could probably just as easily get by with the cheaper Tamron equivalent.
 
Just out of curiosity, for the 17-55 users out there who have been using that lens for years... how satisfied are you with the sharpness/image quality? I hear mixed things.
 
puredrifting said:
My take away from this thread is NONE of us agree on the right lens for our work because none of us do the same work, even within the same category. Weddings, documentary, BTS, narrative, event, we are all different and all obviously have different lenses. The 24-105, even though I hate it, does have better manual focus than the 18-135. The 24-105 is the most popular Canon EOS cinema camera lens, whenever I do shoots where more than one crew is present, that is the most used lens, followed by the 17-55 2.8 IS.
Click to expand...

Because of my GAS, I have had most of the lenses. I've found that I use the 2.8L zooms for most interviews, the STM zooms for b-roll and events, and the Sigma f/1.8 zooms for interviews in cramped rooms and low light events. I rarely pull out my primes unless I am doing slower paced narrative work with filters or night shoots. I have been surprised how much I like the STM zooms. I use the STM zooms over the 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4L due to the much better IS, being able to zoom without a change in exposure, and being parfocal. Also, the better zoom range. The IQ is middling and I sometimes have to rely on the ISO more than I would like, but the STM lenses are key for capturing unplanned shots. Also, the 18-135 STM lens is almost always the lens I use on the Ronin.
 
Jim Feeley said:
Jb2 (and other 50-150 users), is there lots of variance in the different Sigma 50-150 models and units? Besides lacking OS, do the pre-OS versions of the lens perform OK? Is this the sort of lens that you'd buy off eBay or would you want to see and try it in person before picking one up?
Click to expand...

Hey Jim, unfortunately I can't answer re: the variance in all of those, so I'll let others with experience with the other models chime in. I remember when I was researching the lens, keeping everything straight with reviews on which lens was worth it was really a challenge, as Sigma loves a complicated abbreviation string in a lens model (The EX DC HSM OS APO, or some combination of all of those, is the one I stumbled on). This is the only one I've ever used, though, as it just so happened I was in the market for something to supplement my 17-55 at the time; I was leaning toward (ahem dreaming of) the Canon 70-200 but was strapped for cash and wanted to avoid plunking down money on the f/4 version only to lust over the 2.8.

Anyway, found a guy getting rid of it for a steal and I've been really happy with the Sigma. I bought mine in person, after trying it out, but for the most part, if I'm buying used I have to try it first to make sure it's good for me (paranoid). I haven't had any issues with front or back focusing, and the build is really solid, but yeah as you point out, I'm only ever using it on sticks, and mostly for interviews, and slapping the 17-55 on if I'm in need of R+G, handheld or monopod shooting.

I don't have any good frames on my laptop to attach here, but I'm going to be doing a big camera shoot-out with my C100, C300 II, and the 4k version of the BM Ursa Mini in a few weeks (perk of corporate video shooting, and the company wanting to invest some $ into new gear; it'll be a good chance to see how the C100 holds up to the 4k stuff at two different levels), and I'll update with some stills of each so you can get a feel for what it renders on each of those bodies, if you're curious. I'll try to get some ungraded footage up too, to show how it all looks.
 
Thanks a bunch for your reply, Jb2. Good luck with the shootout. If you have time, would love to see/read what you think after...

Best,

Jim
 
KarlSutton said:
On the 18-135 why are more using the STM than the USM version?
Click to expand...

I bought the USM version for the zoom controller, which is kind of useful. I was going to sell the STM version, but I use it on my Ronin and the STM version has a lip at the edge of the focus ring that is not on the USM version. I can use that lip with the Ronin lens support which drastically reduces vibration in the Ronin at higher motor powers.

They are otherwise the same lens functionally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top