C100: New Canon 24-70 f4 with IS for run and gun C100 action?

S

Sfernald

Active member
The C100 is like the perfect run and gun camera. People mistake it for a DLSR most of the time. But I don't really want to run around with a big rig on it or put it on my shoulder. As soon as you put a camera on your shoulder, you are screaming camcorder. But what I've found is that the biggest problem with the footage I've taken when running around with the C100 is the shakiness. No matter how careful and still I am, it's next to impossible to remove some annoying shakiness with the lens I use. And this is with a relatively wide angle lens.

So I am thinking about picking up the new canon 24-70 f4 with IS. The new image stabilization for this lens is supposed to be great for video. From my research on the net, image stabilization in the lens seems to really help for video with those tiny bumps that occur in handheld. It seems to smooth out the image making it more tolerable for viewing. Also, the lens is supposed to be quite nice in other characteristics such as sharpness and color. The fact it is f4 doesn't really bother me because frankly the C100 is great in low light anyway and I usually run around in f4 or higher because focus is another huge issue in these situations.

So I was wondering if any of you have tried the new 24-70 f4 with the c100/c300? Can you comment on how well it will smooth out handheld footage? The c100 + the auto focus button + this new image stabilized lens would seem like a powerful run and gun combo, no? There's just not enough info out there on the lens for me to throw down the $1500 yet.
 
Take a good look at the 24-105 f4 IS. great lens and practically a must have for the C100 and C300. Buy a used one and save a few bucks. I used it a bunch on a couple of handheld spots and was very pleased with the results.
 
I'm kind of scratching my head why anyone would want to give up the 70-105 tele region when the 24-105 f4L IS can be had for about $800-900.

The 24-105 is a great lens like Erik said.
 
AndreeOnline said:
I'm kind of scratching my head why anyone would want to give up the 70-105 tele region when the 24-105 f4L IS can be had for about $800-900.

The 24-105 is a great lens like Erik said.
Click to expand...

well, I'm no expert. That's why I'm asking abut the lens. But there are a couple reasons for my interest.

The 35mm focal length is 38mm-112mm. This is standard through portrait right? That happens to fill a hole I have in my "quality" lens lineup. If I needed 100mm (160mm) I would feel guilty as heck not digging out my zf.2 100mm macro, which is pretty much the best lens I've got.

Since this is a new lens, and Canon is getting much better making lens, it is supposed to have a nice upgrade in image quality over the 24-105 in terms of sharpness and other characteristics. Barrel distortion is incredibly low. All of the stats across the line improve on the 24-105 according to the testing I've seen. They are just below the brand new 24-70 f2.8 which is $2100 I believe. This is evidently version two of the 24-105 lens and they cut the zoom to 4x because I guess that allows them to improve the IQ quite a bit, at least that's what I read.

Also, my research on the lens suggests that they upgraded the image stabilization feature of the lens which to me is pretty important. It will be interesting to see if it is quieter. I understand that the zoom on the 24-70 is silent. Is it silent on the 24-105? It also has a built in .7 macro mode which is kind of cool and always handy.

Also, it is substantially smaller and lighter than the 24-105. That is useful because I would be hand holding the camera for hours at a time.

So basically I would rather pay extra and get a lens with the latest tech and better IS and IQ but I could certainly understand just getting a 24-105. Everything is a compromise because there is always something better out there.
 
Last edited:
I will say this as an owner of LOTS of Canon L glass (and non L for that matter).

I agree that the 24-105 is a nice lens. BUT....

One of my main lenses that I use is the 24mm tilt/shift lens. Then Canon released the 17mm tilt/shift and I was BLOWN away at the quality of the optic! Later on, Canon updated the 24mm tilt/shift with version II. I went and rented it and in one hour I returned the rental and just bought the lens because it was night and day vrs the version I that I owned.

This gets me thinking that the 24-70mm just released will destroy the 24-105 due to the advancements Canon has made in optics lately.

I would go rent both the 24-70 and 24-105 and run a side by side.
 
Sfernald said:
So basically I would rather pay extra and get a lens with the latest tech and better IS and IQ.
Click to expand...

If it turns out that the optics are noticeably better, then it's a very valid choice of course!

It has been my understanding that it was of similar quality to the 24-105. I need to update my intel on this lens then.

If it's close to the the 24-70 2.8L II, the trade-off being f4 for IS, then it's a very interesting lens.
 
I prefer the 17-55mm f2.8 IS, but then again I'm often in smaller spaces being in NYC so the wider end is more useful as is the speed
 
Sfernald said:
yeah, this is where I got my info. the optics appear to be better than everything except the 24-70 f2.8 V2.

ive decided to pick this lens up so I went ahead and ordered it. I'll throw up a test with the c100 if you guys are interested.
Click to expand...

Yes, please do walking steadicam tests as well as static handheld. Have seen IS tests with the 100mm L macro with hybrid IS that are amazing. waiting to see if this lens performs as well or better.
 
J Davis said:
I prefer the 17-55mm f2.8 IS, but then again I'm often in smaller spaces being in NYC so the wider end is more useful as is the speed
Click to expand...

Agreed. 24-70 f4 IS is useless when compared to 15-55 f2.8 IS. No doubt you have a longer reach but the wide becomes 36mm. With my 17-55 it is 26-83 which is a very reach.
Why take 24-70 f4 IS when there is 24-105 f4 IS?????? The sharpness and color rendition is very very much better?

On the other hand, if they are to launch a 16-60 f2.8L with IS, I will be the first to buy. But of course I know it is not possible otherwise they will cannibalise their 16-35.
17-55 should be using L lens weatherproof casing!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top