Rumored Canon CN-E 70-200

Run&Gun

Run&Gun

Veteran
Canon Rumors is saying Canon will announce a new cine zoom. CN-E 70-200.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32395.0

I remember seeing hints of this a few years ago. And wanting it to be true. I know I'm dreaming price wise, BUT if they produced a fully manual(NOT the hybrid crap of the 18-80) cine 70-200 that is at least a T2.9 for $7K-$10K(or less)... SOLD. I'll put my name on a pre-order list now. Zeiss' version is ~$20K and the GL optics conversion doesn't wow me(and the iris adjusts backwards).

Would I REALLY be pushing it to want user swappable EF & PL mounts...? ; )
 
I think $10K would be too low for it, but maybe it will be less than the usual average price of a new car.
 
The Zeiss is around $20K. All of Canon's cine zooms, except the 18-80, are over $20K. But we have seen several zooms introduced lately that are well below that. Although Canon doesn't exactly have a history of playing follow the leader with price... Right now it's all just speculation and rumors until/if Canon confirms it. But I just put my feelers out to some people that, at this point, would probably know if it's true or not. Maybe I'll get a wink or nudge.
 
I'd think Canon might want something around US$10,000 to compete with the "cinema zooms" around that price from Angenieux (EZ Series), Zeiss (LWZ series), and probably others I'm not thinking of (and heck, the $4000ish MK series from Fujinon).

I guess we'll know in a week... :-)
 
I found this in B&H
70-200 T4.4, covers super 35, it says parfocal throughout and takes in 1.4x and 2x tcs. Pricing details have not been mentioned. I think that page will be updated soon.
 
indiawilds said:
I found this in B&H
70-200 T4.4, covers super 35, it says parfocal throughout and takes in 1.4x and 2x tcs. Pricing details have not been mentioned. I think that page will be updated soon.
Click to expand...

I'm hearing that pricing wise, it's gonna be about the same as the 18-80.
 
heguy said:
4.4 lame.....
Click to expand...

It's all about keeping the size and weight down. Seems this is a popular response these days. We have more cine lenses and zooms in the last 12 months that ever before. Just be happy they are coming out with lower cost options.

The Canon COMPACT-SERVO 70-200mm Zoom is $5225.
 
In terms of getting proper exposure, a lot of the people who complain about T/4.4 not being fast enough to get proper exposure are the same people who were fine shooting with the 5D Mark II or 7D with say f/2.8 lenses, so one stop faster. A 5D Mark II would get noisy after 800 ISO, and 1600 ISO was maybe as far as you wanted to push it, if I recall my numbers rightly. However, say a C300 Mark II, which is where these are aimed at (along with C100s and other videos cameras), is pretty clean up to 6400 ISO, so, two to three stops more ISO capabilities than the 5D Mark II which people didn't complain about not being usable in low light.

To reiterate, a C300 Mark II with a 70-200 T/4.4 is going to be better in low light than a 5D Mark II with a 70-200 f/2.8, and probably better in low light than a 5D Mark II with a 135 f/2 @ f/2.

I just find it funny how what was once considered usable in low light, say a 5D Mark II at ISO 800 with a 135 f/2, is now considered unusable, such as a C300 Mark II with the same exposure at T/4.4 at 3200 ISO. Has "low light" gotten lower in the last few years?


Now if it's depth of field you're after and not basic exposure in low light, then sure, you may want or need that extra speed. I believe most big shoots are shot around f/4-f/5.6 (and not shot by shallow depth of field trendy amateurs), but some big shoots like shallower depth of field and it's a useful tool to have when needed.

I'd imagine a large percentage of people buying this lens already own a 70-200 f/2.8, so they could use that if they need a faster lens, and use the T/4.4 when they want the cinema features it comes with.
 
I had not heard before that that Canon compact zoom line will be T4.4. With the launching of the 70-200 T4.4 it is very clear that Canon will not launch T2.8 in this line as it will simply kill its bigger cinema zooms. 99.9% of the people will take the IS, even if they don't use autofocus due to their past habit, if the T stop is to their liking. So my theory (haven't heard from any Canon executive) is that they will not launch a 2.8 lens in this range anytime soon. They appear to again mistakenly believe that this CN-E XX-XX IS L KAS S lens lineup will only be used by guys who are coming up through the ranks. They had similar beliefs about the C100, that it would only be used by people upgrading from DSLRs, and see how popular the C100 line became.

One thing is for sure. This series of lenses would become popular. Shooters will be more comfortable showing up with these glass rather than still lenses because of ease of use, quality and also because it differentiates from still glass. While shooting a famous Indian athlete for a HBO shoot in a stadium, many photographers walked up to me to ask about my C300 and some of them even commented that they can recognise the still glass and wondered how I can shoot with still glass. All I hope is clients don't start demanding which lens in lower budget productions. :)

The 70-200 in S35 means in reality it is the equivalent of 46-133mm (in 35mm parlance). So don't equate it with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II lens either for focal length range or aperture. Your 70-200 f2.8 or f4 lens will give you more field of view (or give you a more zoomed in image) than the CN-E 70-200 L IS KAS S lens. I am very sure that I will be soon buying the CN-E 18-80 but I am not sure about buying the CN-E 70-200 as the existing 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is a superb lens.

Anyone thinking of buying the CN-E 70-200?
 
indiawilds said:
I had not heard before that that Canon compact zoom line will be T4.4. With the launching of the 70-200 T4.4 it is very clear that Canon will not launch T2.8 in this line as it will simply kill its bigger cinema zooms. 99.9% of the people will take the IS, even if they don't use autofocus due to their past habit, if the T stop is to their liking. So my theory (haven't heard from any Canon executive) is that they will not launch a 2.8 lens in this range anytime soon. They appear to again mistakenly believe that this CN-E XX-XX IS L KAS S lens lineup will only be used by guys who are coming up through the ranks. They had similar beliefs about the C100, that it would only be used by people upgrading from DSLRs, and see how popular the C100 line became.
Click to expand...
I don't think T/4.4 is the main differentiation from their bigger CN-e cinema zooms. I think the main differentiation is hard stops and a 300 degree focus throw.

First ACs pulling focus will not like the 18-80 or 70-200; it's basically like a still lens in that regard which is not good.

I use auto-focus a lot for run n gun and doc work with the C300 Mark II, but I also do bigger crewed commercial and narrative shoots and most of the time on those shoots I prefer to have a first AC pulling focus wirelessly, and having hard stops and a 300 degree focus throw helps the AC quite a bit. Auto-focus just doesn't work well enough for many of those types of shoots and shots.

IS has a less natural look which is often a better solution than the micro jitters that are common on smaller camera setups like the C-series and even more so on DSLRs. On bigger shoots the camera is often rigged out to a good 20-50 lbs, put on a proper balanced shoulder mount or Easy Rig, such that the look of that handheld footage is well controlled, doesn't have micro jitters, and has a more organic and generally better look than what IS is capable of providing. So again, for that style of shooting, IS is less important and often frowned upon due to the lower quality look it gives.

Unlike the 15.5-47, 30-105, and 30-300 cinema zooms which you're likely to see on commercial and narrative sets, the 17-120 has a 160 degree focus throw and is aimed at doc and run and gun shooting so is a bit closer in competition with the 18-80, though I believe the 17-120 has hard stops.



indiawilds said:
The 70-200 in S35 means in reality it is the equivalent of 46-133mm (in 35mm parlance). So don't equate it with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II lens either for focal length range or aperture. Your 70-200 f2.8 or f4 lens will give you more field of view (or give you a more zoomed in image) than the CN-E 70-200 L IS KAS S lens.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that this info is incorrect, unless I misunderstand what you're saying. A 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II @ 200mm @ f/4 should have the same field of view, framing, depth of field, as the Canon CN-e 70-200 T/4.4 @ 200mm @ f/4 when used on the same camera such as a C300.

The only real difference is that the 70-200 L-series is compatible with full frame cameras (while I don't believe the CN-e one is) and on a full frame camera the framing would be wider, etc.
 
Last edited:
indiawilds said:
The 70-200 in S35 means in reality it is the equivalent of 46-133mm (in 35mm parlance). So don't equate it with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II lens either for focal length range or aperture. Your 70-200 f2.8 or f4 lens will give you more field of view (or give you a more zoomed in image) than the CN-E 70-200 L IS KAS S lens. I am very sure that I will be soon buying the CN-E 18-80 but I am not sure about buying the CN-E 70-200 as the existing 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is a superb lens.

Anyone thinking of buying the CN-E 70-200?
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. The 70-200 still lens designed to work on a full frame camera will give you the same field of view when it is mounted on a C300 as the CN-E 70-200 designed for s35 when it is mounted on a C300. Now, the field of view will be narrower for any given focal length on s35 compared to FF. The focal length does not change just because it's being used on a different sized sensor. Your field of view does. Think of it this way: you have a 50mm lens that can mount to any camera. You start with it mounted on a FF 35 camera as your baseline. You then mount that lens on an apsc or s35 camera. It's focal length is still 50mm, but the field of view is narrower. Then you take the same lens and mount it on a medium or large format camera. It's still 50mm, but now it's field of view is wider than it was even on the FF35 camera, because the sensor is larger.

I understand why people think in terms of converting to "equivalent focal lengths", but it leads to confusion and misunderstanding, because a lot of people don't understand what is actually happening and they think the focal length is actually changing.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Unlike the 15.5-47, 30-105, and 30-300 cinema zooms which you're likely to see on commercial and narrative sets, the 17-120 has a 160 degree focus throw and is aimed at doc and run and gun shooting so is a bit closer in competition with the 18-80, though I believe the 17-120 has hard stops.
Click to expand...

The 17-120 actually has 180 degree rotation of the focus barrel and yes, you are correct, it does have hard stops. If you remove the grip from the 17-120(just a few screws), it looks the same as the other Cine zooms you mentioned, except the zoom and iris have different gear pitches that match ENG lenses. I'm presuming it made it easier and more economical and allowed them to use existing servos and gearing that are used in their ENG lenses and to pack it all in an existing design grip. Oh, and you have a Macro and back-focus adjustment that the others don't.
 
Definitely one of the most mis-understood pieces of information in our business. It doesn't help that there are so many different size sensors on the market with so many different FOVs. As someone who began in still photography decades ago, focal length and FOV have always made sense to me but it doesn't seem to make sense to many others in our business. I think it also confuses things when you have cameras like the 5D MK IV that actually has a different FOV when shooting 4K vs. 1080, the way the C300 MKII changes FOV in higher than 60p slow motion frame rates and I know there are others that do this as well.
 
Thomas Smet said:
T4.4 is only lame for those obsessed with shooting in the dark with no lights. A cine lens is used on professional productions and I would hope well lit productions. This is not intended for skate board videos by the pale moon light.
Click to expand...


Was that sarcasm??

The fact that 4 users up-voted it leads me to believe it was sarcasm. I hope for the sake of the person who posted it that it was in fact sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top