C200: Lenses for C200

C

Crevice

Active member
For those of us who are new to the Canon world or the cinema line in general, which lenses will you be using and/or recommend? I have my eye on the 17-55mm, 70-200mm f/2.8 ii and the 50mm 1.2L.

Will any auto focus lens work with face tracking and DPAF on the c200?
 
If you are looking for fast zoom lenses, I have three in mind: 16-35mm L f2.8, 24-70mm L f2.8, and 70-200mm L f2.8.

Prime lenses I recommend: 50mm or 35mm 1.4, 100mm Macro

Budget setup: 24-105mm f4 and a 50mm 1.8

If you get these lenses, it'll cover everything you may ever need. Anything above this you need to start looking at Cineglass.
 
No one really knows which lenses will work best with this camera until some time passes and a general consensus is formed. (Talking face-tracking and object-tracking. Regular AF should be fine.)

A Canon rep once told me STM lenses will work best with all DPAF modes, and then most of the newer USM glass is a great option as well. But that doesn't mean older lenses won't work well either; just might be a little slower. The results will vary across the board.

IMO, the 50mm STM (which is also pretty sharp) is currently one of the best lenses you can put on cameras with DPAF.
 
definitionxmk said:
If you are looking for fast zoom lenses, I have three in mind: 16-35mm L f2.8, 24-70mm L f2.8, and 70-200mm L f2.8.

Prime lenses I recommend: 50mm or 35mm 1.4, 100mm Macro

Budget setup: 24-105mm f4 and a 50mm 1.8

If you get these lenses, it'll cover everything you may ever need. Anything above this you need to start looking at Cineglass.
Click to expand...

I have heard that the 24-70's focal lengths are a bit awkward for a crop body like this.
 
A really cheap start is to get the three ef-s stm zoom lenses. They are all slow lenses and work best if you just set them to f/5.6, but all three together are cheaper than any lens that is a step up and they have decent range, fantastic autofocus, and great IS, especially the 18-135mm. I feel like they are a no brainer for anybody that does any kind of event or ENG style work.
 
Crevice said:
Never said it was optically bad. I meant the focal lengths of a 24-70 as an all around lens are not great on a crop body, the 24mm becomes more of a 38mm, which is simply not wide enough.
Click to expand...

oooh okay! Yeah, I know what you mean. I DO notice that I use the 16-35mm the most. Hope that helps.
 
definitionxmk said:
That pretty much sums it up for the AF route. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Yup. As far as which lenses look best, that a much more personal decision. My favorite lenses aren't auto-focus (with the exception of the Sigma 18-35). Of the lenses I can afford to own I love love love the Contax Zeiss lenses.
 
A great starting kit would be three 2.8 zooms that cover basically the whole typical focal length spread: Tokina 11-16mm, Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS, and Canon 70-200mm II IS.

I would highly recommend the 17-55 2.8 IS over the 24-70. The former is lighter, has image stabilization, and is roughly equivalent to the 24-70's FOV on full-frame.

Don't waste your money on the 50mm 1.2L. The 50mm 1.8 STM will work better with the dual-pixel AF, and lets in only marginally less light.
 
One thought. If you are looking at pure manual lenses, I would try to get a Nikon or M42 mount or something that can be adapted to the EOS mount. If you get an adapter with a dandelion chip, then you can convince the camera to give you manual focus assist with the DPAF.
 
I think the Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 would be a great all around kit. Does anyone know how well they work with DPAF?
 
I'll second the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a great "normal" zoom for the CineEOS bodies. I love mine on my C300 Mark II.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is another great choice. I use that one a TON for interviews.

I rounded it out with a Tokina 11-16mm and a Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM. I also have the 18-135 IS nanoUSM and the power zoom attachment. It's great.
 
I think you might want to throw in a Sigma 18-35 for the speed. If I were starting fresh and wanted zooms/IS I'd get:

Tokina 11-16 2.8
Sigma 18-35 1.8
Canon/Sigma 17-50 2.8 IS
Canon/Sigma 70-200 2.8 IS
 
Besides the obvious focal length difference at the long end, how does the new 16-35 f/2.8 compare to the 17-55? I have seen some footage on other cameras using the 16-35 f/2.8 that look amazing.
 
Crevice said:
Besides the obvious focal length difference at the long end, how does the new 16-35 f/2.8 compare to the 17-55? I have seen some footage on other cameras using the 16-35 f/2.8 that look amazing.
Click to expand...

I own neither lens... but from what I know of them, the 16-35 2.8 L III is best in class for a wide angle FF zoom - sharper, less distorted, less CA than the 17-55 - but the 17-55 is still a very strong lens. However, compared to the 17-55, the 16-35 is heavier, less flexible in a run and gun environment, and most importantly, lacking IS. When I've rented extra lenses for reality run and gun shoots, the 16-35 was probably the least used lens in the kit, often opting instead for either a 17-50 or 24-70 to use primarily, followed by a 70-200, with the 16-35 taking up the rear because IQ often takes a back seat to convenience. My shooting tends to be one extreme or the other, requiring either maximum flexibility/mobility, or low light and primes.

If increased weight, no IS, limited zoom, and increased cost are worth the modest IQ improvement or won't effect your shooting style, then you have your answer. But a lot of the oomf of the 16-35 from full frame is lost on super 35 sensors.

Personally, I've had the sigma 17-50 2.8OS for ages and have had a hard time justifying getting a 16-35 II/III... though since getting a 5DMIV I've been thinking about it again... So maybe it'll end up in the kit eventually...


TL;DR It depends on your budget and how you shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top