C100: Lenses that match well on the C100

E

EIREHotspur

Well-known member
I have read and reread the post by Erik on his blog about lenses that match up well.

I am selling my Sony Ex3 on Saturday which will help me fnd the C100.

I had been holding out to see if an updated Cinema Camera was coming ou but my reasoning is that it would carry new Ultra HD specs and I think that's few years down the line to being mainstream.

I have the 70-200 2.8L II and was thinking of adding the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS.
 
The 24-105 is perfect with the C100. If you need a wide angle lens, the Tokina 11-16 is great! The Canon 17-55 2.8 seem to be very good too.
 
I'm using:

Sigma 18-35
Canon 85L

A fast 50mm is next.

I'm no longer willing to use zooms apart from the 18-35 or an iso above 1600 on this camera (ideally no higher than 850).
 
If you are planning to use the C100 for events or docs, the 24-105 is about as good as you can find on this camera if you are shooting at f/4. When trying to shoot events, I find that an aperture wider than f/4 is a set up for a lot of missed focus and 105mm at f/4 has a pretty limited depth of field anyway. I had the 17-55, but I completely stopped using it when I got the 24-105. If you stop the 24-105 down, you get noticeable light loss when zooming and it acts like a variable aperture lens. Some people have found the 18-135 to be a great lens for events if you don't mind shooting slower than f/5.6 and bumping up the ISO when inside.

If you are doing narrative or interviews, the 24-70 f/2.8 might be a better choice to use with the 70-200.
 
Thanks for all the replies lads.

I should have clarified though that I intend to add another C100 for a tw camera setup later in the yea and wanted to know your experience.....an from reading I never seen many people shoot with two C100s.....Erk know uses C300 at work and has a C100 himself.

I suppose if I got a 24-10 or the 24-70L II...either would match well to the 70-200L II (it is a fantastic lens by the way...my prde and joy)
 
I often shoot with a two C100 interview setup. The 70-200 for the closeup and the 24-105 for the wide. Honestly, I would prefer the 24-70L II for interviews as f/2.8 is about perfect for keeping just the person in focus at that focal length range, but I find the IS to be too important to lose. I often have both cameras on a double headed tripod and it is very easy to get jitters.

The 17-55 f/2.8 could be an option if you are doing a two camera shoot. It has IS. I don't like the focus ring on it that much. It would also match colors. The problem is that while it is great for an APS-C sensor, it actually has a surprising amount of light fall off on an S-35 size sensor. You can use the crop frame option on the C100 to get the recorded frame down to an APS-C size, but I can't imagine that this is ideal for the image.
 
I know a couple of 2x C100 owners and it's a very solid option, but the general pattern is C300 owner gets C100 as second camera, whereas C100 owner tends to rent in second camera which is a C300 (me) because you can shake a tree and a well groomed C300 kit will fall out of it. Hiring C100s seems just a little less viable to most rental houses.

As a C100 owner, it's easier to rent in a C300 from the aspirational point of view, plus you don't need ANOTHER Ninja Blade, ANOTHER mount, ANOTHER HDMI to SDI converter (especially when you're going on a 'live' gig). There's a feeling we should have 2x C300s, after all. But secretly I prefer the C100 and the way it works. I hate the C300 'silly hat' LCD ergonomics whilst I totally appreciate what it does. I love the C100's joystick control but so disappointed with the LCD and VF. Why wouldn't I go for a C300 to partner my C100 when the C100's paid for its self and is a revenue generator? Best of both worlds.

I'd feel comfortable with a C100/C300 pair - a brace of C100s is far more 'Pure Play' and probably far more business sense, but my inner Geek wants both. A sports car and a people carrier in the garage, so to speak. But I digress...

By sticking to Canon L glass, you're closer to matching colour, contrast and sharpness between shots. The Tokina does have a 'look' of its own (bluer shadows?) and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 seems a little creamer to me. I can deal with this in post, but to some shooters, a 'fix in post' solution is anathema.
 
24-105L is on my C100 about 75% of the time with the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and Samyang primes making up the rest.
 
MattDavis said:
As a C100 owner, it's easier to rent in a C300 from the aspirational point of view, plus you don't need ANOTHER Ninja Blade, ANOTHER mount, ANOTHER HDMI to SDI converter (especially when you're going on a 'live' gig).
Click to expand...
I use mine a couple of time on live gigs, but the delay on the HDMI port is kind of disturbing. I think it's 4 frames. More than 2 frames is too much for me.
 
I have the 70-200 f2.8 and the 24-105 f4. You really need both for versatility (also have the Tokina 11-16), and I was in your situation so I figured if I stayed within the Canon family L series that would be as close as I could get to matching.
 
I've been using the 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8, and they've been great as a pair. I've found that 24mm is just not wide enough on the C100 for documentary shooting, like inside a small room or something, the 17-55 is the way to go. And yes, the focus ring feel and overall build quality ain't L, but I will give it points for being very light weight.
 
John Foundas said:
Why?
Click to expand...

After a long time of enjoying high iso cameras, I find it to be - FOR ME - a crutch that I refuse to rely on from now on. It encourages laziness on my part. There is a resolution drop when pushing the iso up but most importantly - since I most likely didn't have good light to begin with - I'll end up with more chance of getting a low contrast image.

My goal now is not just to get the shot. It's to get the best shot that I can.

I enjoy faster lenses also as they are "free" stops of light in the sense that you don't pay the same penalties as you do from in camera boosting. An f2.0 shot at 1600 iso is going to be cleaner than an f4 shot at 6400 iso.

That's my experience anyway.
 
i use 24/70 2,8 II canon..o tripod,canon 17-55 is 2,8 best zoom lens in hand camera in low ligt,tokina II 11-16 on steady cam,70/200 II 2,8 IS
 
Thanks for the replies lads.

I have a 5D3 for stills.
Was going to use it for video too but the C100 image is so much better, will add a second C100 late this year) and the 70-200 f/2.8 L II

I had in mind the:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Going to add the Canon 17-55 IS to that list...that should be all I need for stills and video.
 
EIREHotspur said:
Thanks for the replies lads.

I have a 5D3 for stills.
Was going to use it for video too but the C100 image is so much better, will add a second C100 late this year) and the 70-200 f/2.8 L II

I had in mind the:
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Going to add the Canon 17-55 IS to that list...that should be all I need for stills and video.
Click to expand...

Just remember the 17-55 will not be 100% compatible with your 5DM3 for stills as it is for APS-C cropped sensor. Just a friendly reminder.
 
thanks for that icicle22....I would deff have to get it for the C100s....the crop factor will make it around 24mm.

I was going to buy the 24-70 next but will get the Canon 17-55 IS and then Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS.
 
I was shooting this weekend on the 24-105 for the first half of the day, then was able to switch over to the 70-200 2.8…wow what a difference! If only we could have shot everything from that distance! My favorite looking lens by far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top