C100: Normal or faulty lens? Canon 17 - 55mm

^ I'm not going to argue but until Canon comes to the table with something equivalent to the 70-200 to fill the UWA~WA end, folks are just settling for what they now offer. I'm talking IQ, IS, 2.8 or better. Tamron has something in place now but not quite ready for prime-time. Canon should hit us with their best shot, but then again, they are Canon.
 
I think in Canon's way of thinking, C100 and C300 users are supposed to be buying expensive cinema lenses, not stills lenses. There should be a really professionally built, expensive 17-100 or so 2.8 IS II lens for the Cinema EOS line, but there isn't. The cinema lenses are great but are not used by the typical EOS Cinema camera user, except as an occasional rental. We need a high-end, run and gun wide to moderate telephoto zoom that is 2.8 with IS that is built like a tank for around $2k. I think most EOS Cinema camera owners would be all over that lens and Canon would sell a ton of them. 17-55, 18-135 or 24-70 2.8, none of them hit the sweet spot for video use, they are each a compromise in various ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top