C200: Lenses for C200

The 16-35 II lens is not great. I have it, but I don't like it that much. The 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma lens is a better lens on crop frame. Sharper, parfocal, faster, better build. The 17-55 f/2.8 just feels weak to me. The IS is only good for handholding on a static object as it doesn't like panning or moving. It's an older version of IS. The focus is short and gritty. The zoom is a bit sloppy. And there can be some noticeable vignetting problems when IS is engaged. But some people love it and it is miles better than the other standard zoom crop frame f/2.8s from Tamron and Sigma.

I did a test of a bunch of lenses at 24mm on a 1DC awhile ago and the 16-35 II was the noticeable dog of the group. I didn't have the 16-35 III to test at that time.
 
Last edited:
cpreston said:
The 16-35 II lens is not great. I have it, but I don't like it that much. The 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma lens is a better lens on crop frame. Sharper, parfocal, faster, better build. The 17-55 f/2.8 just feels weak to me. The IS is only good for handholding on a static object as it doesn't like panning or moving. It's an older version of IS. The focus is short and gritty. The zoom is a bit sloppy. And there can be some noticeable vignetting problems when IS is engaged. But some people love it and it is miles better than the other standard zoom crop frame f/2.8s from Tamron and Sigma.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the 16-35 III (Mark 3). You are the first I have heard say that it's not great, not arguing that it might not be the best fit for a c200 because it does not have IS. From the reviews its supposed to be the best wide angle zoom on the market, from any brand.
 
For full frame, it is.

The sigma 18-35 is about 1/3 the price and incredibly well reviewed, as well (used or direct from sigma refurbished)... so take that into consideration if it will never get put onto a full frame body, ever.
 
Phosphor said:
For full frame, it is.

The sigma 18-35 is about 1/3 the price and incredibly well reviewed, as well (used or direct from sigma refurbished)... so take that into consideration if it will never get put onto a full frame body, ever.
Click to expand...

yeah, the sigma is a beast. i do have a sony a7rii that i use for photography (and video as well) so I would like to limit my crop lenses, so I can share between the 2.
 
Crevice said:
I am talking about the 16-35 III (Mark 3). You are the first I have heard say that it's not great, not arguing that it might not be the best fit for a c200 because it does not have IS. From the reviews its supposed to be the best wide angle zoom on the market, from any brand.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I wish I had the III, but I am waiting for it to come down in price. The 18-35 Sigma is a better lens than the Canon 16-35 II and probably just as sharp as the 16-35 III. The Sigma has a different look, though, and noticeable falloff wide open. The nice thing about Canon lenses is that the Cinema camera compensates for fall off, although I am pretty sure that is not the case in Raw mode. The extra stop or so of light on the f/1.8 and the great video mechanics of the Sigma also favor the lens.

Also, if speed isn't an issue the 16-35 f/4L is better than the f/2.8 II has great IS and is relatively cheap compared to the f/2.8 III.
 
Last edited:
cpreston said:
I am talking about the 16-35 f/2.8 II. I wish I had the III, but I am waiting for it to come down in price. The 18-35 Sigma is a better lens than the Canon 16-35 II and probably just as sharp as the 16-35 III. The Sigma has a different look, though, and noticeable falloff wide open.
Click to expand...

I agree re: the Canon 16-35L vs Sigma 18-35 - huge fan of the look and DoF of the Sigma, not at all a fan of the Canon on a Super 35mm sensor.

We're looking for a standard zoom for our C100, which has now been relegated to 'Second Camera' after purchasing a C200. We'll use the C200 with our Sigma 18-35 and need something similar for the C100 for a versatile reverse angle lens. We have the Canon 16-35 II but as mentioned not a fan of it's look on these cameras.

Options are just another Sigma 18-35 or something in the 17-50ish range, like the Canon, Tamron or Sigma. The 18-35 is a known quantity which we love, but it would be good to supplement it with a lens with a little more versatility for when we're shooting doco one camera. Any thoughts? Shallowness is very important, as is sharpness. Quiet autofocus is a secondary consideration.
 
pmcdonald said:
I agree re: the Canon 16-35L vs Sigma 18-35 - huge fan of the look and DoF of the Sigma, not at all a fan of the Canon on a Super 35mm sensor.

We're looking for a standard zoom for our C100, which has now been relegated to 'Second Camera' after purchasing a C200. We'll use the C200 with our Sigma 18-35 and need something similar for the C100 for a versatile reverse angle lens. We have the Canon 16-35 II but as mentioned not a fan of it's look on these cameras.

Options are just another Sigma 18-35 or something in the 17-50ish range, like the Canon, Tamron or Sigma. The 18-35 is a known quantity which we love, but it would be good to supplement it with a lens with a little more versatility for when we're shooting doco one camera. Any thoughts? Shallowness is very important, as is sharpness. Quiet autofocus is a secondary consideration.
Click to expand...

This is a case where I think you want the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. And maybe throw in an 18-135 stm for when you are sick of fighting with your depth of field and focal range limitations and just get the shot. They are going for about $200 used right now.
 
cpreston said:
This is a case where I think you want the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. And maybe throw in an 18-135 stm for when you are sick of fighting with your depth of field and focal range limitations and just get the shot. They are going for about $200 used right now.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. We've got the longer end pretty well covered with primes and 70-200's.

I'm really after a twin for the Sigma 18-35 - something that can mix it up in terms of IQ but offer a little extra some'ing some'ing with range. This is for a second camera so both can go out on seperate jobs simultaneously or cover similar framing on a multicam shoot.
 
I'm going to append my lens list with comments below. These were mostly bought for still photography. My philosophy is to work to achieve some new capability with each purchase. In general, my experience is that zoom lenses designed for stills breath badly (worse than primes) when used for video.

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
- cheap, works well with DPAF, covers most focal lengths you will need. I purchased these with my C100mkII for these reasons.

Rokinon 14mm T/2.8
Rokinon 85mm T/1.5
- cheap, very sharp, minimal breathing, very fast. Bought these for full frame DSLR shooting using a 1Dx on a rig.

SIGMA 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM
- cheap, not very sharp, AF not reliable. Bought for still BIF.

Canon EF11-24F4L
- Expensive, very sharp, significant breathing, much less distortion than the STM wide zoom

Canon EF 15mm Fisheye (prime)
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM
Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L Tilt-Shift (prime)
Canon EF 50mm f1.2L USM (prime)
Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro (prime)
- specialty lenses, mostly for stills, the 50 works well for video, the 24-70 is optically less than great.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM II
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro USM (prime)
Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (prime)
- bought for stills, good for video. The primes are a bit long for super35 crop but the 135 is wonderful for close face shots.
 
I have the 18-55 STM, 18-135 STM and 24-105 STM for my C100's. I love the focal range on the 18-135 - HOWEVER - that lens if using the IS will cause the image to sometimes 'snap' into place when panning a shot - especially on the wide end of it and it is noticeable on video. It is reproducible, I thought I was seeing things at first and now I can make it happen every other time if needed. I even bought a brand new one as I thought I had a bad copy and had the exact same issue. I ended up putting that lens on my 7D to shoot with photo and the 18-55 sits on my C100 the majority of the time as I shoot run and gun style.
That all being said I will be buying the Sigma 18-35 ( again - I sold it last year ) and the Sigma 50-100 ( both Art series ) - and maybe the Sigma 70-200 sport when it releases later this year.
The Sigma Art series is very hard to beat
 
iggy097 said:
I love the focal range on the 18-135 - HOWEVER - that lens if using the IS will cause the image to sometimes 'snap' into place when panning a shot - especially on the wide end of it and it is noticeable on video.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I think the 18-135 STM has some of the best IS available. It isn't nearly as bad as the IS on the 17-55 or the older 24-105. All those lenses did was snap into place as they were meant for photo shooting and didn't have any compensation for panning or tilting.
 
Yea - I was very disappointed as this range is great for run and gun. I think you could probably get away with it if it wasn't critical footage - but once I started seeing it, I couldn't NOT see it and it drove me absolutely crazy. The 18-55 does not do it, nor does the 24-105, Just the 18-135.
 
Can any of you speak to how well DPAF works on the Tamron 15-30 F/2.8 VC ?

I was looking at that lens to use with the Canon 5D MK IV for it’s 4K crop in video – as well as on the C200 as a wide angle alternative to the Canon 16-35.
 
also curious as to the sigma 18-35 v the canon 16-35 2.8.

I hear the sigma searches, BUT HOW MUCH WORSE?
 
iggy097 said:
Yea - I was very disappointed as this range is great for run and gun. I think you could probably get away with it if it wasn't critical footage - but once I started seeing it, I couldn't NOT see it and it drove me absolutely crazy. The 18-55 does not do it, nor does the 24-105, Just the 18-135.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a related item but the 18-135 STM IS also has a thing where anytime you zoom the lens, the focus lags behind the zoom, so any snap zoom from any focal length to any focal length will temporarily be out of focus, it snaps into focus once the focus servo catches up the zoom servo. Really a weird issue, it has something to do with the whole terrible "focus by wire" technology in the lens. Drives me crazy too, especially when I am shooting BTS or documentaries where I need to be constantly changing or adjusting focal length for framing. The 17-55 2.8 IS doesn't do it, nor does my 70-200 2.8 IS II. When I shot on Prison Break in Morocco last year, Fox ended up using several of my shots for the half hour TV special that have this going on and it made me cringe.
 
Thoughts on Canon lenses I've owned w/ C300II (but should translate to C200). YMMV:

24mm IS USM 2.8 - Lightweight and sharp. Great af. Perfect on a gimbal.

35mm IS USM 2 - AF noiser than the 24mm. Decent quality though and the IS is nice on this focal length. MF fiddly.

24-105mm F4 v1 - Decent quality for certain projects where absolute quality/sharpness doesn't matter so much. Obviously a bit slower, but fine in daylight. IS helpful especially at longer end of lens. Focal length range is great though - run n gun hero. MF has a nice feel also. Would like to try v2.

Sigma 18-35mm - Sharp, good in low light. Best photo wide angle zoom. The AF broke on my copy though while using Continuous AF and I think I've seen other mention this too.

24-70mm F2.8 II - Sharper than the 24-105 but breathes quite a lot and don't like the feel of the zoom ring for manual focus as it's too loose to perform smooth focus pulls.

70-200mm F4 - Good for price & weight. Quite a bit of focus breathing, but will light/compact enough to throw in your bag and get you some shots. I think the 2.8 is probably worth the upgrade unless you're travelling light.

This is just from starting small and building up over the years... however, if I was starting again and had enough cash I'd go for:

Canon 18-80mm (for daylight run and gun)
Sigma 18-35mm
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 85mm I.4 IS

I also have the Zeiss Otus 55mm & 85mm which are optically great, but I prefer them for tripod work due to the mass of them.

I was also impressed with how the CN-E primes felt and performed even handheld without a should rig. They just kind of seem to work together perfectly.
 
y0ud said:
also curious as to the sigma 18-35 v the canon 16-35 2.8.

I hear the sigma searches, BUT HOW MUCH WORSE?
Click to expand...

My copy of the Sigma hasn't been any noticeably worse in DPAF than any of my Canon lenses, in fact I had a lot of problems with my 24mm 1.4 L II on a certain setup until I understood that DPAF really hates flares. This is on a 1dx II however.

I have noticed that DPAF is way more quick and accurate in general at 2.8 than at 1.8 though. On my 50mm 1.2, at 1.2 it's unbelievably slow and takes a while to catch up, but at 2.8 I never notice if it's off because it takes advantage of the extra depth of field so well.
 
Last edited:
The 50mm 1.4 isnt on the supported list, is that due to the lower aperture ? or is there another issue?
 
Has anyone tried the autofocus on the Sigma Art 18-35 & 50-100 1.8 lenses?

I have a set of Rokinon primes that I usually use for filming sit down interviews, but am looking to get a set of lenses that would cover sit down interviews but with good face tracking autofocusing, especially for using 2-camera situations. Those two Sigmas seem like they would cover that situation perfectly if the AF is good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top