C200: Lenses for C200

fhammond said:
Would you mind elaborating on that? Why is it not as satisfying?
Click to expand...

The 18-80 has a much wider range that doesn't really have any comparable lenses competing with it. The closest is the 18-135 stm or 24-105 f/4L. The 70-200 is just a 70-200. My other annoyance is that the 70-200 has noticeable focus breathing. It is no worse than the 70-200L, but it would have been nice if Canon could have fixed it. Otherwise, the 18-80 t/4.4 and the 70-200 t/4.4 feel identical.
 
I got tired of the vignetting of the 17-55 especially in 4K (not so much in UHD) and recently bought the 18-80 - after advise here on the forum. So far it’s a win.
I use it mostly handheld, mostly press the cam to my chest for docu. Also great to hold on to the lens and press to my shoulder for quick “action” interviews. (So that the eye-direction height gets right).

It’s expensive, a bit heavy as a package with the C300m2, and only T4.
But the positive things exceed: nice picture, bokeh, lovely with stepless iris, that the real aperture is consistant without light loss, that it is parfocal. And great reach (feels like a 24-105 on a 5dm2-3 without loosing light)

PS If anyone want to test or rent in Sweden, pm me.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I've shot handheld cradled with the 18-80. Makes it pretty front heavy but it's not unusable. Definitely favors a shoulder mount setup. Canon really should have thought out the power cable better, even with the Zacuto right angle cable, it's a hot mess.
Click to expand...

Copy that, the power cable is unbelievably stupid...
 
Mark Smith said:
I'd be interested in a Sigma 50-100 Art. I think that would be a potentially great interview lens.
Click to expand...

The breathing on that lens is insane if you ever need to rack from subject to subject and most have reported the image quality isn't as good as the 18-35. For 50-100, why not shoot with an 85mm prime instead? Smaller, cheaper?
 
If canon made an L series 16-50ish with IS and a faster aperture than f/4 I’d drop whatever $$ they feel like charging. I originally bought the 16-35 f/4 IS for my gimbal work, but now that my 17-55 feels unusable in 4K I might have to pick up another 16-35 to keep on both cameras. Not being able to zoom to 55 is a killer though.
 
Have the 85 prime and love it . The 50 -100 Art is of interest because in theory its a great focal length range for interviews. Set wide frame at 50 and then there is plenty of punch in room out to 100 if you want to shoot significantly different frame sizes. The 24-70 2.8 is my current lens for this use and I don’t feel like its long enough for my taste to give me the 2 frames that are different enough which is why ‘in theory’ I like the 50 -100.
 
Mark Smith said:
Have the 85 prime and love it . The 50 -100 Art is of interest because in theory its a great focal length range for interviews. Set wide frame at 50 and then there is plenty of punch in room out to 100 if you want to shoot significantly different frame sizes. The 24-70 2.8 is my current lens for this use and I don’t feel like its long enough for my taste to give me the 2 frames that are different enough which is why ‘in theory’ I like the 50 -100.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, you do need to have enough differentiation for cutting between them. If you are just going to punch in and punch out, I guess the breathing wouldn't matter? All of those ART lenses seem to be pretty sweet overall. I have almost bought the 18-35 several times but I am getting by with the 17-55 2.8 IS.
 
Have been using the Sigma 18-35 recently. Still just getting used to the camera, haven't used it on a major project. But, can definitely vouch for it's autofocus!

Although, I have seen some micro moire pop up in women's hair when the lens is stopped down. Not sure if anyone else has experienced this?

Obviously not a lens issue, but it has popped up. Anyone else ran into that on the C200 when shooting RAW?

To me, the Sigma looks best around f2 - f2.8 (bokeh remains creamy and the vignette clears up a bit), and at f2.8 especially the autofocus is fantastic. However, the lens is far too sharp for my tastes. Looking into filters now to help take the edge off.

I also wish the lens went to 50mm. Would be nice to have that reach, and I really want a nice f2 autofocus 40mm focal length, but nothing really out there ATM.
 
chris f said:
...Here are some side by side frame grabs including an interesting lighting scenario in the top left photos in which the 17-55 needed to be cropped even more in post than what's shown below to get past the lens flare/vignette in the lower right corner. The unpredictability of the 17-55 is what scares me for projects when I'm just handing over footage to the production company.
Click to expand...
Re the vignetting experienced using the 17-55mm in 4k...

Couldn’t one create a filter preset in one’s favorite NLE to apply a little exposure boost in the corners? This is done routinely for still photography, with automated processes. If I understand the images posted by chris f this is only needed when you’ve parked the lens at full wide?

Granted, you don’t want to be telling a production company that they need to apply corrections to your footage.

Disclaimer: I’ve never shot a C200 at 4k. Though I do like my 17-55mm lens for stills and video at 1080p!
 
SethB said:
Re the vignetting experienced using the 17-55mm in 4k...

Couldn’t one create a filter preset in one’s favorite NLE to apply a little exposure boost in the corners?
Disclaimer: I’ve never shot a C200 at 4k. Though I do like my 17-55mm lens for stills and video at 1080p!
Click to expand...

Vignetting is past the point of being possible to correct in camera or in post at full DCI aspect ratio.
In UHD/HD it's possible to correct if you get a decent copy of 17-55/2.8 lens. (Some are better than others...)
I own 17-55/2.8, C300mk2 (same sensor) and have shot 4K many times.
 
The vignetting is especially noticeable when stopped down with IS. With IS, there are times when you are obviously outside of the lens' image area. The same thing happens with the 18-135STM.
 
SethB said:
Re the vignetting experienced using the 17-55mm in 4k...

Couldn’t one create a filter preset in one’s favorite NLE to apply a little exposure boost in the corners?
Click to expand...

In theory that could work, but in this particular instance there's two things stopping it:

1. Some of the vignetting is almost completely black, so not really a lens characteristic vignette, but more of a the lens can't physically cover the sensor vignette.
2. With IS turned on (which for me is the whole point of this lens) the vignetting moves and bobbles around unpredictably which would be impossible to consistently correct.

I'm going to rent the Sigma 24-70 2.8 IS Art lens for an upcoming doc shoot and see how that does. 24mm certainly won't be wide enough for some situations and to me the 55-70 range of the lens will almost certainly be useless, but this could be an option to supplement my Canon 16-35 f/4 IS lens. The Sigma Art 18-35 would have been really enticing if it had IS. For me, when doing doc work shooting with lenses that have IS is a must.
 
For those seeing heavy vignetting, are you using the lens hood? I've been using the hood designed for the 24-105 I, and I've not seen any vignetting since, though i'm only shooting at 1080p 16:9.
 
drummondb said:
For those seeing heavy vignetting, are you using the lens hood? I've been using the hood designed for the 24-105 I, and I've not seen any vignetting since, though i'm only shooting at 1080p 16:9.
Click to expand...

Same question but re back protector. (Not the back cap, but the cover + extension that would make it hit the mirror in an SLR.) I removed the back protector when I was using Sony with metabones for a reason I can't recall (hitting the condenser lens?). Now I shoot a C200 & see very little vignette and mostly at 17 only. I only shoot UHD, never 17x9, so I'm probably missing all the worst of it. But if you love the lens and want a lazy/ last ditch effort, try removing the back thingy--Sorry for getting too technical!
 
Last edited:
djangosan said:
Same question but re back protector. (Not the back cap, but the cover + extension that would make it hit the mirror in an SLR.) I removed the back protector when I was using Sony with metabones for a reason I can't recall (hitting the condenser lens?). Now I shoot a C200 & see very little vignette and mostly at 17 only. I only shoot UHD, never 17x9, so I'm probably missing all the worst of it. But if you love the lens and want a lazy/ last ditch effort, try removing the back thingy--Sorry for getting too technical!
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've never heard of this, how would you do it without messing anything up with the lens?
 
I apologize if this has been asked / answered before but does the Sigma 18-35mm vignette at all on the C200 4k 12Bit RAW?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top