C100: New Canon Cine-Servo 18-80mm EF Lens Announced $5225 Pre-Orders @Texas Media Systems

Bassman2003 said:
I know this lens will be well received because there is a vacancy in this space. And I know this is not a 24-105 f4 but a new design. But expecting folks to be excited about it (and thankful) depends upon if you really need it. Just making the point that 18-80 F4 lenses are plentiful in the still world. Some are parfocal. All that is missing is the motorized servo design. Would rather it be f2,8 for more usefulness, but nothing against it.
Click to expand...
But, at this level, F2.8 costs a lot to make......
 
puredrifting said:
In my world, I own Nikon still lenses, EF and a few L lenses and they are good enough for 80% of my needs. A lens like this is for rentals for higher end projects along with a C300 MKII, it looks like a cool run and gun lens.
Click to expand...


Seriously? You think the 18-80 is for higher end use and is a rental type item? I guess it's all needs, expectations and what you're used to… For me, this lens is about as exciting as cardboard flavored ice cream.

One of my sales reps emailed me this afternoon asking if I wanted them to check out anything in-particular at NAB, since I'm not attending this year. This lens and the Fuji 20-120 actually came up. They said they weren't excited about the Canon, either. This lens is to appeal to the low-end of the market. Honestly, I'd rather shoot with true still glass than waste money on this. And at T4.4, much rather get an IBE B4 to s35 adapter(about the same price) and use one of my ENG lenses.
 
Maybe it's not meant for high end, but I guess that depends on where you put that market. I don't consider my work necessarily high-end, but it's real budgets with a lot of money at stake on productions that are seen by millions of people every day. I and the shows I do are the target market for this lens.

I shoot mostly adventure documentary shows for various clients and networks (Travel, Vice, A&E, NatGeo, Red Bull, etc), and primarily use EF lenses for weight and cost savings in areas that are as far from ideal as you can get. We've tried the Fuji 19-90 and the Canon 17-120; too heavy and too expensive to risk where we go. And I assure you, there are many, many shows like this that shoot primarily on EF lenses. One of our staple lenses is the 24-105, which I have a massive love/hate relationship with. The IS is nice to have and nearly a necessity, but it's on the poorer side for video work, especially when compared to more modern IS implementations. And don't even get me started about the loss of the T through the zoom range when you're stopped down. Also, having to switch constantly between the 24-105 and a 16-35 for a wider FOV is a massive PIA. To be able to replace those lenses with an 18-80mm that has modern cinema glass design, is parfocal, mechanical (focus, zoom, & iris!), has a state-of-the art 3-mode video IS implentation (which I'm hoping is like the Standard, Dynamic, and Powered modes of the XF305 lens), and keeps constant brightness through the range no matter my stop, all at just 2.6lbs... honestly, it's like manna from heaven for me. It's the version II of the 24-105 I've dreamed about. And at the $5k price, cost conscious production companies will have no excuse to not switch to these.

Tomorrow I'm leaving for Nepal where I'll be on foot for 10 days trekking where vehicles can't go, carrying gear and shooting the entire way. I would put down the money right now if I could have this lens for that project. Rental houses will buy this lens. Production companies will rent this lens. Production companies will buy this lens. Owner/ops who do similar work to what I shoot will buy this lens. Hell, I think it will be great choice for indie features, and even commercials or music videos (where budgets are constantly shrinking). With the sensitivity of cameras these days, f/4 isn't a big problem for most shooting scenarios.

There's a market, and Canon knows it, which is why the product exists. You may not have, but a lot of production companies, professional DP's, and operators have been asking for it for years. I don't think the next season of House of Cards will be shot with it, but it looks to be a well designed piece of kit that delivers on a level where no one is playing, and there's a significant need.
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
Maybe it's not meant for high end, but I guess that depends on where you put that market. I don't consider my work necessarily high-end, but it's real budgets with a lot of money at stake on productions that are seen by millions of people every day. I and the shows I do are the target market for this lens.

I shoot mostly adventure documentary shows for various clients and networks (Travel, Vice, A&E, NatGeo, Red Bull, etc), and primarily use EF lenses for weight and cost savings in areas that are as far from ideal as you can get. We've tried the Fuji 19-90 and the Canon 17-120; too heavy and too expensive to risk where we go. And I assure you, there are many, many shows like this that shoot primarily on EF lenses. One of our staple lenses is the 24-105, which I have a massive love/hate relationship with. The IS is nice to have and nearly a necessity, but it's on the poorer side for video work, especially when compared to more modern IS implementations. And don't even get me started about the loss of the T through the zoom range when you're stopped down. Also, having to switch constantly between the 24-105 and a 16-35 for a wider FOV is a massive PIA. To be able to replace those lenses with an 18-80mm that has modern cinema glass design, is parfocal, mechanical (focus, zoom, & iris!), has a state-of-the art 3-mode video IS implentation (which I'm hoping is like the Standard, Dynamic, and Powered modes of the XF305 lens), and keeps constant brightness through the range no matter my stop, all at just 2.6lbs... honestly, it's like manna from heaven for me. It's the version II of the 24-105 I've dreamed about. And at the $5k price, cost conscious production companies will have no excuse to not switch to these.

Tomorrow I'm leaving for Nepal where I'll be on foot for 10 days trekking where vehicles can't go, carrying gear and shooting the entire way. I would put down the money right now if I could have this lens for that project. Rental houses will buy this lens. Production companies will rent this lens. Production companies will buy this lens. Owner/ops who do similar work to what I shoot will buy this lens. Hell, I think it will be great choice for indie features. With the sensitivity of cameras these days, f/4 isn't a big problem for most shooting scenarios.

There's a market, and Canon knows it, which is why the product exists. You may not have, but a lot of production companies, professional DP's, and operators have been asking for it for years. I don't think the next season of House of Cards will be shot with it, but it looks to be a well designed piece of kit that delivers on a level where no one is playing, and there's a significant need.
Click to expand...

^^^This is exactly what I think the market for this lens is. I've worked on a number of reality shows in my time
Most of them seem to have moved over to super 35 cams like the C300 or FS7. The Cabrio/Fuji 19-90 has been the
lens of choice, but that's pretty expensive at about $40 grand. I'm thinking that is exactly where this lens will fit in...
for reality TV shows. First, you've got the most used focal lengths. F4 is ok with the low light ability of modern cams,
and although not the shallowest, if you zoom in to 85mm or so, you will certainly 'knock the background' out pretty decently
at F4 for interviews. A company could probably buy a couple of these lenses instead of paying rental on the Cabrio/Fuji
over the course of a few shows.
 
The 24-105 used to be my primary lens until I just got too sick of the drawbacks. The IS is not good for handholding, and it is only constant transmission wide open. My copy was pafocal, so that wasn't a problem. I switched over to the 18-135 for the dynamic IS and the ability to actually set a constant transmission for zooming, even if it was only 5.6. The main problem is that you can't use the footage while zooming and the S35 sensor coverage and image quality is pretty weak. Will the new 18-80 fix the issues with 24-105. Is it actually a constant transmission lens when stopped down? Is the IS useable. In conjunction with a longer lens or if it works with extenders, it may be able to replace all of the rest of my zooms.
 
Jim Martin said:
From Newsshooter:
What you’ll get when you put the new lens on a suitable EF-mount S35 sensor camera is the equivalent of a 24-105 full frame lens, a really useful zoom range that will be ideal for anyone who’s ever missed a shot because they’ve been changing a lens while the action was inconveniently carrying on without them.

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
Click to expand...

Actually, that Newshooter article is wrong. I told them their math was wrong as I knew people would start quoting it - they admitted it was wrong and said it was just meant as a guide to the nearest available lens.

For the record; put this lens on a C300 and it has the equivalent AoV of a 26-116 on a 5D which is a pretty good range. Let's hope the optics are too.
 
Run&Gun said:
And at T4.4, much rather get an IBE B4 to s35 adapter(about the same price) and use one of my ENG lenses.
Click to expand...

If my math is right, this would be a close equivalent in B4 world and with expander the transmission will be T4.4 (same as Canon's) , but effective F-number will stay the same - F1.7 (~F2.8 on 35mm FF)?
 
Using b4 2/3 inch lenses with adapters is not the best solution as most eng lenses will deliver inferior IQ. Any decent 35mm lens will blow any eng lens away at full resolution. Eng lenses are made to resolve 1080p at most on a 2/3 inche sensor.
 
The last thing I would want to do is put a 6+ lb ENG lens plus the weight of the extender on a C100 or C300. It might work on a tripod but who wants to try to balance that on your shoulder? The main advantage here is the 18-80mm is lightweight.
 
It looks like a great lens to me, could easily replace my 24-105 and 17-55 for it.

Forgive me if I'm dim but wouldn't 18mm on a S35 lens and a S35 sensor = the same field of view as 18mm on a FF lens and a FF sensor?

So why would we need to do fov comparisons/calculations on this lens? On a Cx00 isn't it true 18-80 fov, there's no 1.3 crop factor as it's a S35 lens?
 
Last edited:
All right, I'm in too.
But.. 1,2 Kg and no lens bracket.
What about the maximum weight supported by EF-mount ?
1 Kg like E-mount or more ?
 
Matt Turner said:
It looks like a great lens to me, could easily replace my 24-105 and 17-55 for it.

Forgive me if I'm dim but wouldn't 18mm on a S35 lens and a S35 sensor = the same field of view as 18mm on a FF lens and a FF sensor?

So why would we need to do fov comparisons/calculations on this lens? On a Cx00 isn't it true 18-80 fov, there's no 1.3 crop factor as it's a S35 lens?
Click to expand...

NOPE. There is no Super35mm version of 18mm... all focal lengths are always the same no matter what format you are shooting. Sensor size doesn't change the focal length, it changes how the focal length is viewed, otherwise known as field of view.

Field of view is determined by the sensor, but it doesn't change the focal length. When a lens is designed for Super 35mm, all it means is that the lens will not fill the image circle of a full frame camera. So you can't use 18-80mm on a 5D, it will vignette on the wide end.

18mm on Super 35mm will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS look the same, no matter what sensor the lens is designed for. If you are wondering in terms of full frame field of view, this 18mm on super 35 would about look like a 25mm lens on full frame.

I'm not sure when everyone started relating all focal lengths to full frame 35mm, it's maddening!! Not that hard of a concept to grasp.
 
Even better...look at this image. The rectangle represent the focal lenght. See how the focal lenght has to change to keep the same FOV on different size sensors.
 

Attachments

  • cropped_sensor_view.jpg
    cropped_sensor_view.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 0
Doug_EX said:
Even better...look at this image. The rectangle represent the focal lenght. See how the focal lenght has to change to keep the same FOV on different size sensors.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that makes no sense- it makes it more confusing if nothing else... and I'm a lens guy- I can only imagine what it does to others....;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top