Lens

A lot of people really like the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which also has great prices on used copies https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._f_2_8_IS.html

Slower aperture than the sigma, but more range plus image stabilization.

There's also an argument to be made for getting 2 lenses - a fast prime like a 50mm f/1.8 for interviews, and then a superzoom for b-roll. I used to use the tamron 18-270 on my Canon 7D. It's a slow aperture so you need a lot of light, but it has huge zoom range.

They actually sell an 18-400 now, and it has image stabilization - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...6_3_di_ii.html

The Canon 50 f1.8 is only $125, so it doesn't necessarily add much to your lens budget if you want to get it as a second lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...f_1_8_stm.html

But it sort of depends on how you like to shoot interviews and what youre shooting b-roll of. If you like shooting interviews with wide lenses, the sigma 18-35 could be great. If you're shooting a lot of sports and stuff outside, having the long range of a superzoom can prove invaluable. But if you're shooting office interiors, it's probably not necessary.
 
For me, it was the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. It cost me about $150 and surprised me when it became my go-to lens for about five years (C100 > C200).
 
QuickHitRecord said:
For me, it was the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. It cost me about $150 and surprised me when it became my go-to lens for about five years (C100 > C200).
Click to expand...

This was actually my go-to lens on my Sony Fs5 for a while. For the cost it is a surprisingly good lens. I forget why I even picked it up but I was really glad that I did. I eventually shifted to using a sppedboosted Canon 24-105 f4 but I think in many ways the Sigma was superior, aside from having less reach.

I'll also second the suggestion of the Sigma 18-35. I still love that lens and wish I could use it on my FX6 without having to use Clear Image Zoom.
 
I shoot C200

18-35 1.8 really gets you in the narrow DOF class.

that mixed with a 50 1.8 and you are a tru art boy.

Or for pure run gun terrorism I like the 15-85 - slow little heard of.. but 15 is way cool for an eng setup so much better than 17 or 18
 
When I shot on my original C300, before I bought the CN-E primes or IBE B4 to s35 adapter for my 2/3" ENG lenses or Cine Servo zooms, my "go-to" lens for general shooting was the 24-105. Followed by the 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.2.
 
Run&Gun said:
, my "go-to" lens for general shooting was the 24-105. .
Click to expand...

Here's where I think it really matters to have a handle on one's typical shooting scenarios. 24-105 on super 35 is nice reach but can't go that wide and it's relatively slow. Basically the opposite of the 18-35. The Canon 17-55 and sigma 17-50 give you field of view and aperture of a full-frame 24-70 f/2.8 which is basically great unless you need to zoom in more. For my run and gun with photo lenses and a full-frame camera, I always do sigma 24-70 f2.8 rather than my sony 28-135 f/4. Better optics, better in dark environments. I can't remember the last time I used my 28-135
 
This original question is about as wide open as it gets, ha. Even with the further clarification of interviews and b-roll, it would be tough to settle on just one. I like a really fast lens for interviews, you never know what you'll be up against for the interview setting and having the option of really blurring the background if needed with a 1.2 or 1.4 is clutch.

If I'm shooting b-roll outdoors then you can't beat the Canon 18-80 T4.4 Compact Servo. The image stabilization on it is fantastic, the focal range is more extensive than some other options and the T4.4 is less of a liability out in daytime exteriors. Not so good for indoors though.
 
The Canon 18-80 would be a nice lens to have but you better have an arsenal of good paying clients to afford a lens like that and still have enough money at the end of the day to buy dinner.
I agree though.
I’m leaning towards the Canon 24-70.
Unfortunately, I just purchased a 24-70 for my Nikon D750 before I bought the C100 so I purchased an adapter to let me put it on the Canon C100.
A bit cumbersome but it works. At least until I have enough cash to buy the Canon lens.
 
ahalpert said:
Here's where I think it really matters to have a handle on one's typical shooting scenarios. 24-105 on super 35 is nice reach but can't go that wide and it's relatively slow. Basically the opposite of the 18-35. The Canon 17-55 and sigma 17-50 give you field of view and aperture of a full-frame 24-70 f/2.8 which is basically great unless you need to zoom in more. For my run and gun with photo lenses and a full-frame camera, I always do sigma 24-70 f2.8 rather than my sony 28-135 f/4. Better optics, better in dark environments. I can't remember the last time I used my 28-135
Click to expand...

Yep. But at the time, you also had to look at just what was available. If you were only shooting interviews, you were fine, as there were (are) plenty of fast primes, but for general shooting scenarios, like what I was/am involved in, fast paced sports doc type stuff, the 24-105 was the unsexy, but most versatile lens available initially. Honestly, there still is not a large sensor equivalent for our 2/3" 13x ENG wide angles that would equate to ~11-143. About the closest thing we have is the new Canon Cine Servo 15-120.
 
The Canon 18-80mm servo zoom. Or, if you want cheap, the Canon 18-135 stm or nano-usm lens. The latter lens is generally overlooked because it is slow, but it has better IS than any other Canon lens for video and it is actually parfocal and maintains transmission at f/5.6 when zoomed
 
Run&Gun said:
Yep. But at the time, you also had to look at just what was available. If you were only shooting interviews, you were fine, as there were (are) plenty of fast primes, but for general shooting scenarios, like what I was/am involved in, fast paced sports doc type stuff, the 24-105 was the unsexy, but most versatile lens available initially. Honestly, there still is not a large sensor equivalent for our 2/3" 13x ENG wide angles that would equate to ~11-143. About the closest thing we have is the new Canon Cine Servo 15-120.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure you knew exactly what scenarios you were walking into when you bought that lens. I'm just saying that the "interviews and b-roll" that the OP mentioned could refer to a lot of different things. Sure, a 15-120 could basically handle it all. But if we're talking about a sigma 18-35 then it could either be perfect or woefully inadequate. I mean, it seems like a lot of studio zooms or even field ENG zooms make do with only a 35mm FF equivalent on the wide end or even a 50mm because they're designed for shooting talent from a distance.
 
I have used the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS for many years, from EVA-1 to now C300iii.
I am pretty happy with it though it could be longer at the long end.
I have heard that the quality might vary significantly from lens to lens.
It seems that I have a good one :) If you buy it make sure you buy it were a return / swap is easy possible.

I am selling the 18-80 now. Great lens, no question but my work has changed and it's too bulky for what I do now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top