Eric Coughlin
Veteran
What happened to Run&Gun?
New RF Mount Cinema Camera coming June 5
- Thread starter DustinSchmidt
- Start date
rob norton
Veteran
Eric, what are your thoughts on RF 17-120 and the other zooms that will come? Most people by now might want to keep using their EF versions, will canon need to put out a more robust adapter?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
The RF 17-120 doesn't seem that useful unless you know you'll only ever be shooting on RF cameras, otherwise, stick with the PL version or EF version for the versatility. There are some small advantages to it, but not enough to get a lens that expensive that can only work with very limited camera models (can't use on Sony, Blackmagic, or Arri).
Also, the Canon 25-250 covers full frame, has a longer zoom range, and a 1.5x extender for not much more money, so seems a lot better to me. The original 17-120 main advantage over the 25-250 is you can get them used pretty cheap now, around 1/3rd the price of the 25-250, while the RF 17-120 is pretty close in price to the 25-250. They advertise the autofocus as working on the RF 17-120, but the autofocus on the EF 17-120 works on my C300, it's just slow and was not that useful the one time I tried it, I think in large part because it's a large focus barrel to quickly move via an internal motor, so I'd be curious if the RF one has faster autofocus, but I wouldn't count on it.
Same goes for the RF CN-e primes; they don't offer enough advantages to give up the ability to use them on non-RF cameras.
Now, the extra fast f-stop lenses like the 28-70 f/2 and 24-105 f/2.8 I think are real winners, and since they don't and can't have EF versions, they're worth getting. I have the 28-70 f/2 and use it all the time as my primary lens for photography on my R5, and plan to get the 24-105 f/2.8 whenever I've allocated budget for getting it, perhaps when (or if) I get a Canon C400 to compliment it with.
Not sure what you mean by more robust adapter, the thin base of the 17-120 makes me hesitant to use it on the strong locking EF adapter of the Arri Amira without lens support, so I always use lens support on my EF 17-120 regardless of the strength of the adapter. I've seen people use the 17-120 without lens support, so I suppose if that is one's goal then a stronger (locking) RF to EF adapter would be useful for that purpose, or you could just get PL which is even stronger. I recall with the Canon C300 Mark II I would always use lens support with the EF Canon 15.5-47 and 30-105 compact zooms, but did not use lens support using those lenses with the Arri locking EF mount, and then with the C300 Mark III, I found the lens mount more rigid than the Mark II so have not been using lens support with those lenses on the Mark III.
What other RF zooms are coming?
Also, the Canon 25-250 covers full frame, has a longer zoom range, and a 1.5x extender for not much more money, so seems a lot better to me. The original 17-120 main advantage over the 25-250 is you can get them used pretty cheap now, around 1/3rd the price of the 25-250, while the RF 17-120 is pretty close in price to the 25-250. They advertise the autofocus as working on the RF 17-120, but the autofocus on the EF 17-120 works on my C300, it's just slow and was not that useful the one time I tried it, I think in large part because it's a large focus barrel to quickly move via an internal motor, so I'd be curious if the RF one has faster autofocus, but I wouldn't count on it.
Same goes for the RF CN-e primes; they don't offer enough advantages to give up the ability to use them on non-RF cameras.
Now, the extra fast f-stop lenses like the 28-70 f/2 and 24-105 f/2.8 I think are real winners, and since they don't and can't have EF versions, they're worth getting. I have the 28-70 f/2 and use it all the time as my primary lens for photography on my R5, and plan to get the 24-105 f/2.8 whenever I've allocated budget for getting it, perhaps when (or if) I get a Canon C400 to compliment it with.
Not sure what you mean by more robust adapter, the thin base of the 17-120 makes me hesitant to use it on the strong locking EF adapter of the Arri Amira without lens support, so I always use lens support on my EF 17-120 regardless of the strength of the adapter. I've seen people use the 17-120 without lens support, so I suppose if that is one's goal then a stronger (locking) RF to EF adapter would be useful for that purpose, or you could just get PL which is even stronger. I recall with the Canon C300 Mark II I would always use lens support with the EF Canon 15.5-47 and 30-105 compact zooms, but did not use lens support using those lenses with the Arri locking EF mount, and then with the C300 Mark III, I found the lens mount more rigid than the Mark II so have not been using lens support with those lenses on the Mark III.
What other RF zooms are coming?
Last edited:
rob norton
Veteran
I don't know what's coming, I just meant in general the larger cine servo zooms 17-120, 25-250 etc. in RF vs. EF.
If using EF cine servo zooms (17-120/25-250), I was just wondering if existing EF to RF adapters are appropriate since they're mostly adapting EF stills lenses (separate to lens support).
That's interesting about autofocus, that's a shame. If the RF version can't take advantage of the latest gen autofocus, or even if it is taking advantage of it but it still isn't great, you'd think RF will struggle to sell vs. PL or used EF. Unless RF metadata somehow provides so much useful information and/or lens control when working with unreal engine, but it seems like Canon are currently pretty vague in this area.
If using EF cine servo zooms (17-120/25-250), I was just wondering if existing EF to RF adapters are appropriate since they're mostly adapting EF stills lenses (separate to lens support).
That's interesting about autofocus, that's a shame. If the RF version can't take advantage of the latest gen autofocus, or even if it is taking advantage of it but it still isn't great, you'd think RF will struggle to sell vs. PL or used EF. Unless RF metadata somehow provides so much useful information and/or lens control when working with unreal engine, but it seems like Canon are currently pretty vague in this area.
Since the site update, he's been awol. I think the bots got him.
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I use the 17-120 more with the Amira than with the Canon. I use the Canon 18-80 with the Canon C300 more. The 17-120 is also very long which on a short body C300 makes it a bit more difficult to balance, while the Amira can handle the length better in terms of balancing. So, if I was getting a 25-250, I'd still want it to work with the Amira, as well as my Sony FX9s, etc. It's a lot of money to spend on a lens that only works on the newest Canon and some Red cameras instead of a lens that works on just about all cameras. I also use the 18-80 more than the 17-120, because the larger size, weight, and necessity of lens support which means it takes longer to change lenses and rig, makes the 18-80 a lot easier to work with, and the high ISO ability of most modern cameras makes a faster f-stop less necessary for documentary style work that these lenses are aimed at.
The 24-105 f/2.8 on full frame is like a 16-69 Super35 equivalent, so slightly wider and slightly less long than the 18-80, but a stop faster. Also, with the C400 you can switch to Super35 mode at the touch of a button, then giving yourself an equivalent range of 16-105, which you can't do on the 18-80 since it doesn't cover full frame. So the 24-105 f/2.8 is an upgrade for sure, though the ergonomics of adding the zoom rocker doesn't seem as good.
The 15-120 and 25-250 look nice, but I can't currently or in the near future justify the cost of buying them new, and it should be awhile before the prices drop on the used market. I'd probably go for EF mount since it ensures compatibility with all of my cameras and is recommended to use lens support with both EF and PL mount. One advantage of PL mount is you can front load the lens without needing to turn it sideways to spin in as you need to do on EF, as the side handle often gets in the way of the baseplate and support rods, meaning I then need to take the camera off of the baseplate as well when changing lenses, which is an extra step that slows down lens changes. Though, with these lenses you shouldn't be needing to change lenses that often. RF mount has this same issue. PL mount could be tempting to go with.
Texted Run&Gun and he said when he logs in the site is not currently working for him, he's in contact with one of the mods who has been trying to contact the admins about getting it resolved. DVXuser does not make it that easy to contact moderators if you do not have an account and cannot login.
The 24-105 f/2.8 on full frame is like a 16-69 Super35 equivalent, so slightly wider and slightly less long than the 18-80, but a stop faster. Also, with the C400 you can switch to Super35 mode at the touch of a button, then giving yourself an equivalent range of 16-105, which you can't do on the 18-80 since it doesn't cover full frame. So the 24-105 f/2.8 is an upgrade for sure, though the ergonomics of adding the zoom rocker doesn't seem as good.
The 15-120 and 25-250 look nice, but I can't currently or in the near future justify the cost of buying them new, and it should be awhile before the prices drop on the used market. I'd probably go for EF mount since it ensures compatibility with all of my cameras and is recommended to use lens support with both EF and PL mount. One advantage of PL mount is you can front load the lens without needing to turn it sideways to spin in as you need to do on EF, as the side handle often gets in the way of the baseplate and support rods, meaning I then need to take the camera off of the baseplate as well when changing lenses, which is an extra step that slows down lens changes. Though, with these lenses you shouldn't be needing to change lenses that often. RF mount has this same issue. PL mount could be tempting to go with.
Texted Run&Gun and he said when he logs in the site is not currently working for him, he's in contact with one of the mods who has been trying to contact the admins about getting it resolved. DVXuser does not make it that easy to contact moderators if you do not have an account and cannot login.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
the upgrade broke the site for his account and he can no longer log in. The mods tried to fix it but to no avail
Wait what? No anamorphic modes?? That does seem to substantially confine the C400 if it wishes to target the narrative / commercial market.
I guess you can still do monitoring via instead monitors which have that functionality built in to desqueeze.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
is there not 3 sizes of desqueze.
I noted it did not have 1.5 which is the one that interestsme..being no too extreme.
fundamentally 17:9af camera are probably not the natural choice for anamorphic which is better with a 5.4 camera ?
I noted it did not have 1.5 which is the one that interestsme..being no too extreme.
fundamentally 17:9af camera are probably not the natural choice for anamorphic which is better with a 5.4 camera ?
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
This is definitely where the C500 II stays ahead in their current lineup. Way better for anamorphic. But if you don’t need that, it’s probably C400 for the win.
cpreston
Veteran
The C500 II has specific S35 open gate style RAW recording modes for use with anamorphics. You have 5:4 and 3:2 crops in Canon RAW, I believe. It isn't a huge deal, but it gives you the best straightforward recording of high bit rate anamorphic footage of all of the current cameras.
cpreston
Veteran
Supposedly, Canon is developing a 70-200mm f/2.8 Z lens that should be announced soon based on Canon Rumors. There is also a wide angle coming supposedly.