C300: Lenses

D

DDirector

Veteran
Getting ride of my contax zeiss primes. That will leave me with two lenses; Tokina 11-16 & Canon 17-55 IS (but it needs to be fixed, approx $200-300)

Im interested to hear what lenses you would recommend for the C300.
I hate carrying lots of lenses and constantly swapping. So, I want to limit to 3-4 lenses at most. Now I have 5 lenses.

Its mainly nightlife stuff so its all dark environments shooting wide open. And constantly swapping lenses, as if shooting doc style too.

My thoughts were. This seems to be the best combination. Fastest lenses and covers most distance with least amount of lenses:

Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (may even pass on this to save $)
Canon 24-70 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/2.8
*Not sure what I would do with the 17-55 in this case.

OR
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Canon 17-55 f/2.8* (Repair lens)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8
 
Last edited:
The most obvious lens to get IMHO would be the 24-105. Yes, it shares some FOV with your 17-55, and it's "only" a 4.0, but lowlight ain't a problem with the C's and 4.0 is where a manageable DOF starts anyway.
 
I have come to the same conclusion as Spartacus. Back when I was working with the older DSLR's, I was always using f/2.8 zooms and fast primes near to wide open. Now that I've moved up the C series, I find myself almost always using my f/4 zooms with IS rather than the f/2.8's. I ended up just selling my 17-55. I found it way too hard to follow focus at events at f/2.8, especially with it's short throw, grainy focus ring. Also, I noticed heavy vignetting with IS engaged on the 17-55 on the S35 sensor. Then, there was the fact that the 17-55 wasn't even close to parfocal in comparison to the other zooms you have listed. The 17-55 wasn't bad for interviews, though. Based on this, I would get rid of the 17-55 and maybe get the 18-35 further down the line if you find you are wanting the range and the wider aperture.
 
I am constantly shooting wide open. When shooting nightlife, Im often pushing the iso and shooting wide.
1.8 and 1.4 would be much better and highly recommended over 2.8 for the stuff I shoot. Even if its with the C300.

If the 24-105 was a f/2.8 i would. but I cant go for an f/4.
Ive shot with it, and it was not fast enough for what I needed.
 
Spartacus said:
The most obvious lens to get IMHO would be the 24-105. Yes, it shares some FOV with your 17-55
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. That's complete FUD.


***Ignore the above*** I need a retina display!


I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 & Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The least used is 16-35mm.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
No it doesn't. That's complete FUD.
Click to expand...

Is it?

The 2 lenses share or duplicate a portion of their respective FOVs between the focal lengths of 24mm and 55mm.

Made sense to me - I think it may be your post, Liam, that is sewing Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt... :-)

Ben.
 
Liam Hall said:
I have the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 & Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The least used is 16-35mm.
Click to expand...

We use a similar combo of lenses (24-105 instead of 24-70) and I'd agree that the 16-35 is the least used.

However, I was thinking about trying a new 40mm STM - and then talked myself out of it, after thinking the 35mm end of the 16-35 lens is not far off 40mm - I'll shoot some tests sometime and see (unless anyone else already has and can enlighten me.)

Ben.
 
bengiles said:
Is it?

The 2 lenses share or duplicate a portion of their respective FOVs between the focal lengths of 24mm and 55mm.

Made sense to me - I think it may be your post, Liam, that is sewing Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt... :-) Ben.
Click to expand...


Didn't spot the word "some" -- thought it said "same" - apologies for that fail.. ...anyway focal length is focal length.. ...massive difference between 17mm and 24mm. Massive difference between 55mm and 105mm. Massive difference between the two lenses.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
Lol... back to film school for you young man!

Focal length is focal length.. ...massive difference between 17mm and 24mm. Massive difference between 55mm and 105mm. My guess is Spartacus is confused between FF and S35 sensor sizes and is getting in a pickle...
Click to expand...

Who's doing the "editing"? :-)

Joking apart, I think what was being discussed was the crossover between different zoom lens focal lengths and how large portions might be unnecessarily duplicated - FOV and focal length would be interchangeable in this context. I think you may have leapt to the wrong conclusion that we don't understand the difference between focal length and how sensor crop factor affects the resulting Field Of View.

I'm not that young - but thanks for the compliment!

Ben.
 
Liam Hall said:
Didn't spot the word "some" -- thought it said "same" - apologies for that fail..
Click to expand...
There is an edit function for this kind of scenario...

Liam Hall said:
...anyway focal length is focal length.. ...massive difference between 17mm and 24mm. Massive difference between 55mm and 105mm. Massive difference between the two lenses.
Click to expand...
But you seem to rather take back your "fail" and state that you're right anyway, although my post never said anything you now feel the need to rectify.
Sometimes words speak more than action.
 
I have Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55, 24-105, & 70 -200. Like the 24 - 105 least but I am stuck with it on shoots where I can't easily change lenses. I do find the 24 -105 harder to focus than the 17-55 and it is never wide enough. But under the right circumstances the 24-105 performs very well.
 
dp90068 said:
I have Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55, 24-105, & 70 -200. Like the 24 - 105 least but I am stuck with it on shoots where I can't easily change lenses. I do find the 24 -105 harder to focus than the 17-55 and it is never wide enough. But under the right circumstances the 24-105 performs very well.
Click to expand...
I actually had a hard time focusing the 24-105 myself too. Weird.
Its a great range, for sure! But, I just cant go with an f4 for the work I do. :(
 
bengiles said:
Who's doing the "editing"? :-)

Joking apart, I think what was being discussed was the crossover between different zoom lens focal lengths and how large portions might be unnecessarily duplicated - FOV and focal length would be interchangeable in this context. I think you may have leapt to the wrong conclusion that we don't understand the difference between focal length and how sensor crop factor affects the resulting Field Of View.

I'm not that young - but thanks for the compliment!

Ben.
Click to expand...

A simple misread! It took me two attempts to spot my mistake! As I said, apologies for the confusion!
 
Spartacus said:
There is an edit function for this kind of scenario...


But you seem to rather take back your "fail" and state that you're right anyway, although my post never said anything you now feel the need to rectify.
Sometimes words speak more than action.
Click to expand...

Yes, total fail! It was just left unedited from when I had misread your post. One letter is all I misread and it totally changed the meaning of your post! I hope we've cleared that up! Apologies again:-)
 
Last edited:
Odd about focusing. I always found the 17-55 to be a real pain to focus due to the shortened throw and grabby focus ring. I never had a problem with the 24-105.
 
cpreston said:
I always found the 17-55 to be a real pain to focus due to the shortened throw and grabby focus ring. I never had a problem with the 24-105.
Click to expand...

I've always had such a love hate relationship with the 17-55 on the C300. On one hand the range is perfect on S35 and the IS is great. Love it for shoulder/handheld work. On the other hand the mechanics are terrible. The focus ring has a grainy feel and it bugs me that the zoom/focus rings are reversed from my other lenses. In a few instances. I've grabbed the zoom instead of the focus out of muscle memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top