C500: Prime lens with autofocus

C300 was the dominant camera in its price range for about three years but FS-7 was a bigger hit than C300 MKII.

And the entire industry is getting destroyed by the smartphones. For sh!ts and giggles, these are rumors ahead of today's Samsung Galaxy/Note announcements.

Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G (rumored specs)

6.9-inch AMOLED display with 120Hz refresh rate
Cameras: 108-megapixel main, 48-megapixel telephoto with 10x optical zoom, 12-megapixel ultrawide, time-of-flight sensor
40-megapixel wide front-facing camera
Click to expand...

https://www.cnet.com/news/everythin...-tomorrow-new-colors-5g-guaranteed-850-price/

The US price is $1,200 or $1,300 for the top of the line model. How many 24 MPX DSLR's will Canon sell now?
 
Run&Gun said:
The C series were game changers. When the C300 came out it was an absolute steal, unless you were only shooting on a 5D level camera. I know guys that were buying multiple copies, because they were less than half the cost of a lot of what we were used to buying then. Now people expect to get an Arri LF for $15K, but in 2012 what you got in the C300 for that was a bargain.
Click to expand...

I agree, for the day, but it was 50Mbps 8bit 1080HD, so, in terms of longevity, you get what you pay for. Though, agreed, it changed the game in the broadcast and documentary space. And indie filmers were given a no fuss tool.


So, while i was disappointed by the specs, the realities of the industry was ok with it. If they had 10bit, i would still use them. Same goes for the 1DC. But calling them a “steal” when they have such obvious baked in shelf life, meh, i wouldn’t go that far. The industry was already changed by the 5Dmkii, a C300 was just stopping the floodgates and cashing in. But hey, it was the right tool for the right time. Can’t argue with that, and reality shows had the money.
 
puredrifting said:
FWIW, the past few weeks, I've been shooting a series of interviews in Cinema RAW Light on our C200 with the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the 85mm f/1.8, our low budget primes set and all three lenses have been great, the images are beautiful and basically indistinguishable from
the images we get when we rent the CN E Primes on occasion as well as the Sigma Cine Primes. IMHO, you, can buy better lenses for sure, but with low to mid range cine lenses, all you would be paying for is build quality, and ergonomics, that's about it.

Of course, the manual focusing on all three of the still lenses kind of sucks since they are focus by wire and have obnoxiously short focus throw, which is why I am still going to eventually pick up some SLR Magic APO Primes, for handheld shooting. But for interviews, we use AF-C or face detect with
these really inexpensive still lenses with great results. IMHO, for still lenses, the EF Primes look considerably better than the cheap to mid-range zooms. All three of these cheap primes blow the EF S 17-55, EF S 18-135 STM IS and the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS II out of the water as far as sharpness, microcontrast,
speed and cost so much less. I'm kind of back in love with my primes. My only zoom I am still in love with is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, that is still a hell of an impressive image. But it's big and heavy, while the 85mm f/1.8 is light, small and cost a fraction as much and looks close to as good.
I don't think cine primes are going to look significantly different in quality over the still primes until you get into $25k Zeiss primes, etc.
Click to expand...
Very good info! Thanks!

The Sigmas have been looking great, and i am very interested in those APO’s by SLRM.

Saw something today, was actually well shot, but too wide aperture and the chromatic aberrations were actually sometimes obnoxious. Might have been some cheap stills glass or cheap vintage cine glass.

Anyway, can’t way to hear your impressions on the Magics.
 
seanadl said:
Hi there,

This is my first post on the forum and I apologize in advance if this is a bit of a newbie question.

I'm purchasing the C500 ii and looking at investing in lenses. I'm going to be using the camera for both run and gun work and also creative cinematic style promos done in a studio.
I want to use the autofocus capabilities of the camera. For the run and gun, i'll be getting a 24-70MM F2.8L II, 70-200MM F2.8L, maybe a CANON 16-35MM F2.8 III.

However, I do want a set of prime lenses too. I thought the Canon CN-E EF mounted lenses would be a good choise as they would give that nice bokeh and warm look while still maintaining the autofocus capabilities. However, after speaking to the company I'm buying from, they advised that the CN-E lenses don't offer much improvement in terms of optics compared to the L-series lenses. They also don't autofocus.

Does anybody know if this is true? If it is, that's a huge saving on my part. Are there any cine primes that do offer autofocus?
Click to expand...

There are no legitimate, full frame, cinema primes that offer AF with Canon cameras (or any camera to my knowledge).

But Canon L primes are no joke. Even cheap Canon glass is wonderful. There is a reason so many manufacturers have supported the EF mount, including the big boys like Arri and Red. The Canon 35mm 1.4 L II is the finest prime Canon makes, and one of the best 35mm prime still lenses I have ever used. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a movie on that lens. If you want to see magic happen, pop that lens on your C500 II. It's absolutely stunning.

The 24m 1.4 L II is also no slouch. The 35mm is newer though. I haven't tried the 85mm 1.4 IS but it is also supposed to be stellar.

If I were buying Canon lenses I would stick with the still L glass (not the CN-E) so you get the autofocus. I might be wrong, but I believe the CN-E's aren't even full frame, which means you'd have to get the Sumires. Those lenses in my opinion, are severely overpriced for what they are, considering they are still just rehoused L glass with different coatings. If you stick with the L stills glass you'll save a ton of money AND get autofocus. And then if you want, you can put the money you saved to a different set of cinema glass in the future, like Duclos modified Zeiss glass, Lecia glass, or even some Tokina Vistas which are big and heavy but look absolutely stunning.

If I'm gonna use cinema glass, then I tend to go all the way with it. I rent Master Primes or Ultra Primes. If I were to by some, I'd buy the Tokina Vistas which are full frame and are like the poor man's Ultra Primes. If I'm shooting handheld and run-n-gun then I want light and flexible. I don't want cinema glass then. I want stills glass.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
I agree, for the day, but it was 50Mbps 8bit 1080HD, so, in terms of longevity, you get what you pay for. Though, agreed, it changed the game in the broadcast and documentary space. And indie filmers were given a no fuss tool.


So, while i was disappointed by the specs, the realities of the industry was ok with it. If they had 10bit, i would still use them. Same goes for the 1DC. But calling them a “steal” when they have such obvious baked in shelf life, meh, i wouldn’t go that far. The industry was already changed by the 5Dmkii, a C300 was just stopping the floodgates and cashing in. But hey, it was the right tool for the right time. Can’t argue with that, and reality shows had the money.
Click to expand...

Yeah, on paper, the specs were pretty anemic, but you couldn’t argue with the image, especially if you shot it “right” in-camera and weren’t pushing it around six ways from Sunday in post. I’ve always hated the camera design and Canon dropped the ball in a lot of areas, but the picture was great. I think a lot of guys like me were completely fine with it, because we’re from a time where you shot it right in-camera. You didn’t “fix it in post”. There are too many lazy-@ss shooters today who rely on post for everything. They need to learn about color temp/white balance and how to expose properly. If you blow a shot of your subjects face by six stops, the problem isn’t the camera or codec. ; )

I still stand by my comment that they were a steal at the time, at least for a certain market segment. My three previous cameras, before the C300, all sold for $40K or higher. And it had a solid shelf-life of at least five years and is still used some today.
 
Clermond said:
Apologies for the heresy. I forgot it's the Canon EOS Cinema forum ...
Click to expand...

Canon forum posters are reasonable (with the exception of those downvoting). In terms of corporate strategy of any Japanese photo-video company, there's been ample amount of discussion, going back years. What consumers might want isn't always what consumers get. Or, to put it more delicately, there's far too much friendship between the corporations. That effects features, pricing, schedules, etc.

Verstehst du mich jetzt?
 
Run&Gun said:
[C300’s] were a steal at the time... for a certain market segment.
Click to expand...
A slight removing of a few superfluous words, and we completely agree!

The Cine EOS line was designed, made, and marketed towards the film maker when it was revealed. Wasn’t till Jonathan Yi really drove home how awesome it was for run n gun doc work, that the real momentum for the camera started. So, the C300 was a bargain or steal for the market that ended up using it. Just like the 5Dmkii was a moderately prices dslr, until film makers used it, and it became a steal. But most of the outcry against the C300, was from the film maker types. In particular the indie low budget crowd that was looking for a continuation of the 5d. Broadcast looked at film makers like a fat man eyeing someone else’s food asking “you gonna finish that?”, and scooped up the C300’s.
 
Clermond said:
Apologies for the heresy. I forgot it's the Canon EOS Cinema forum :nads:
Click to expand...
I think most everyone posting here is pretty neutral on Canon, except for Barry. Don’t fall into the trap of feeling singled out. There are probably more Canon haters than Canon fanboiz posting on this subforum lately.
 
James0b57 said:
I think most everyone posting here is pretty neutral on Canon, except for Barry. Don’t fall into the trap of feeling singled out. There are probably more Canon haters than Canon fanboiz posting on this subforum lately.
Click to expand...

I am here in this forum because I am interested in Canon especially in the C500II.
By reasons I mentioned in my post I never owned a C series camera (too expensive, missing features)
and as a loyal Canon user over 15yrs in professional still photography I sold my 2 5DMIV and went
for Panasonic S1R. I didn't regret it a second so far. Very sorry, Canon. I kept the lenses because
I use some on the EVA1 and the C500II might be an option but that has to be well calculated first.
 
James0b57 said:
Broadcast looked at film makers like a fat man eyeing someone else’s food asking “you gonna finish that?”, and scooped up the C300’s.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yeah. At the time the C300's were steaks at hamburger prices. Maybe not from Capital Grille or Morton's, but at least Outback... ; ) I'll take two, my good man. And a side of EF L lenses, too. Which one's sir? How much are they? Oh, I'll take the 70-200/2.8, 16-35/2.8, 24-105 and 85/1.2. And sprinkle a few extra batteries on top.
 
Run&Gun said:
Lol. Yeah. At the time the C300's were steaks at hamburger prices. Maybe not from Capital Grille or Morton's, but at least Outback... ; ) I'll take two, my good man. And a side of EF L lenses, too. Which one's sir? How much are they? Oh, I'll take the 70-200/2.8, 16-35/2.8, 24-105 and 85/1.2. And sprinkle a few extra batteries on top.
Click to expand...

Hahaha! So true!

And a lot of those EF lenses have been great at transitioning into the FF35 video world without repurchasing. So, i guess, double win. “Can i get a box to go, please? I’ll have these for lunch tomorruh!”
 
Colin Nusbaum said:
Check out the Tamron SP 35mm f1.8 or 45mm f1.8 primes. Very good quality and both have image stabilization (that they call VC). Autofocus is a little slower than Canon lenses, but it's very accurate, and I think it's fine for video.
Click to expand...

I'd avoid the Tamron primes (or at least rent first for the C500II). I have the Tamron 35mm, 45mm, 85mm, and the 24-70mm G2 and loved them on the C100 but they don't work on the C200. With all of them, you can't change the aperture and the VC/IS doesn't work. I've updated them all with the Tap-In console and they still don't work.

I haven't tested them on a C500 but I'd be hesitant to invest in any further further Tamron glass. The Sigma 18-35 works fine on my C200 so it's not all third party glass.
 
James0b57 said:
Not really.

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.
Click to expand...

You'd think someone who knows so much about me (or at least enough to 'go personal' on a forum) could tell the difference. :-)

For what it's worth, I own several Canon cameras, several Hasselblads. Several FujiFilm cameras. A couple of Sonys. Two current X-series DJI's. My first posts on this forum were about my new Panasonic DVX100 (which was sadly stolen years ago, in a break-in at my studio) and my 30+ years doing this includes equipment branded by Olympus, Contax, Mamiya and a few others.

James, I tend to have a low tolerance for things that smell like BS. I'm likely to say something when people make claims they really can't back up, or at least claims I think I have a different perspective on. If that makes me non-neutral relative to Canon, I guess it does. Funny though, on my youtube channel, there was some guy going on and on about how, after viewing my video, the C500II was the best camera on the planet, superior to Alexa 65, Venice, Helium et al. I quickly explained how I didn't think that was an informed opinion. Most of my posts on the FX9 vs C500II are not about how the Canon is somehow superior, but rather that some of the negative comments and opinions about it here don't represent the reality that I and some others who are using the camera are experiencing (and also that flawed tests happen, and should be examined, and retested if necessary, and not held up as "evidence" if there are knowledgeable concerns about it).

You noted...and laughed at...my comment to Clermond that forums are a place where opinions often take a front seat to facts. Not sure if you saw the other half of my joke (the part about me responding 'in kind' -- meaning what I was about to present...was simply my opinion. Maybe I had a few more facts on my side, but I was never putting Clermond down, or implying his opinion was unwelcome, only explaining where I disagreed (and perhaps that his tone implied facts that weren't). About the same time, several others posted similar disagreements with his post.

A few weeks ago, I did something here that I almost never do, which is that I got personal on a forum. Honestly I felt goaded into it by a deluge of personal sounding innuendo directed at me and a few others, but regardless, It was a mistake (one that I was about to apologize for, when the other party decided to kick it up a notch, so I did what I should have done a week earlier, and ignored it.) I've seen you get in a number of personal shouting matches here. I hope you know that nobody really enjoys it when forums get personal. Always best to keep it about the gear, and that's what I intend to do.
 
Last edited:
But you are pro Canon. Hey, i want to be, but i am still butt hurt about the 1DC.

And you made fun of forum antics. Or was that not poking fun of forum behavior? Am i not supposed to laugh at your jokes?

Sarcasm and rhetorical questions are sometimes difficult to read on a forum, so i don’t like to assume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top