C300: 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/ind...?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...? ; )
 
If it's true. I'd imagine it'd fit with the compact cine zooms around $25k. Which duclos makes answappable mount for.
 
There was a video interview around the time of the introduction of the CNe 18-80 T4.4 that alluded to "Other lower cost lenses in this series to match the 18-80 being introduced" The way the Canon rep spoke in the video, I got the impression that this new lens could be relatively inexpensive. I would not be surprised to see this lens, if it exists, be well under $10k.
 
Canon filed a patent for a Cine 70-200 T2.8 back in 2015, and I know I've been wanting to see them bring out their own Cine 70-200 for even longer. The GL optics re-house was never awe-inspiring to me and the iris rotation is backwards on top of it all. Zeiss' 70-200 is ~$20K and all of Canon's zooms, except the 18-80, are over $20K. Canon has never been one to play 'follow the leader' on price, but there are a lot more "affordable" Cine zooms out, now, that are in that $10K and under league. I reached out to someone generally in the know and they said they have not heard anything about it(which doesn't necessarily mean anything if NDA's are still in play). But they said that it is needed and would be easy enough for Canon to do, so they would actually put some stock into the rumor. The next part is still just their opinion, but is interesting or disappointing, depending on where you sit on lens design. They think that IF it is real it will be a hybrid like the 18-80, probably with a servo and EF mount only, not a fully manual design like their existing compact and studio zooms.
 
They already have the 30-300 T2.95-3.7 which has greater range, hard stops, etc. I've seen them go on Ebay for greatly discounted prices.

Then there's the Zeiss 70-200. I'd figure if the design and features were similar to the Zeiss, the price would be too. But I think it would be more akin to the 18-80 and at around that price range as well.

I'd certainly take IS and AF over hard stops, at least for that focal range.

I'm not sure what the selling point of the lens for me would be for me, though. The 24-70 and 24-105 both are not parfocal and get darker as you zoom in, so the 18-80 makes a lot of sense. But I believe the 70-200 is parfocal and doesn't get darker as you zoom, and of course it has IS and AF, so a cine version would have less appeal. So what would the selling point be then? Better optics (I doubt it'd be much better) and a servo? I don't see much need for a servo for myself, particularly for that range. Be useful for filming plays, which don't have the budget for the lens. Plus I don't really film plays anymore anyway. I could see uses in sports, which I don't do much of.

I think I'd be more interested in a cine 24-70 T/3.

I can just imagine them coming out with all these hybrid lenses with no hard stops, and then later coming out with hybrid lenses which have AF, IS, and hard stops, making you want to sell your old hybrid and get the new one. I don't know how lenses are designed, but I would think it possible to have both. I've heard that the 17-120 has AF, and I believe it has hard stops too. Though, I haven't actually heard of anyone getting the 17-120's AF to work.
 
I wonder why we're not seeing any faster zooms from anyone. Sigma has their two popular ones, and that's all I can think of.

Super35mm is fine...f/1.8, maybe f/1.4.

Even the photo versions would probably be expensive from others like Canon or Sony if they were like the 'L' and 'G Master' lenses, but still curious why they don't make them.
 
I just did two shoots where the director specifically asked me for slow, smooth zooms. Bummed to show him that I couldn't do that with a still lens. Servo lenses can be nice for shooting landscapes.
 
puredrifting said:
I just did two shoots where the director specifically asked me for slow, smooth zooms. Bummed to show him that I couldn't do that with a still lens. Servo lenses can be nice for shooting landscapes.
Click to expand...

Been seriously contemplating the 18 80mm for similar purpose. The last commercial I operated, the director wanted to do a very subtle 'feather zoom' for the climactic shot. Can be a nice effect when it's almost unnoticeable. Even though we rented the 17 120mm, we ended up going a different way with the shot. Don't think I'd go in for the rumored 70 200 lens as I haven't seemed to be using longer focal lengths much of late. That is of course like everything else subject to change.

All the same, very grateful that competition is heating up with several very nice lenses coming in at a 'lower' price point. Look forward to seeing what the next week brings.
 
Additional lenses in the COMPACT-SERVO lens class will be announced in the near futur

Additional lenses in the COMPACT-SERVO lens class will be announced in the near futur

The Compact-Servo Press Release from April 13, 2016 said:

"Additional lenses in the COMPACT-SERVO lens class will be announced in the near future."

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...a-lens-Compact-Servo-18-80mm?WT.mc_id=C126149

puredrifting said:
There was a video interview around the time of the introduction of the CNe 18-80 T4.4 that alluded to "Other lower cost lenses in this series to match the 18-80 being introduced" The way the Canon rep spoke in the video, I got the impression that this new lens could be relatively inexpensive. I would not be surprised to see this lens, if it exists, be well under $10k.
Click to expand...
 
Eric Coughlin said:
They already have the 30-300 T2.95-3.7 which has greater range, hard stops, etc. I've seen them go on Ebay for greatly discounted prices.

Then there's the Zeiss 70-200. I'd figure if the design and features were similar to the Zeiss, the price would be too. But I think it would be more akin to the 18-80 and at around that price range as well.

I'd certainly take IS and AF over hard stops, at least for that focal range.

I'm not sure what the selling point of the lens for me would be for me, though. The 24-70 and 24-105 both are not parfocal and get darker as you zoom in, so the 18-80 makes a lot of sense. But I believe the 70-200 is parfocal and doesn't get darker as you zoom, and of course it has IS and AF, so a cine version would have less appeal. So what would the selling point be then? Better optics (I doubt it'd be much better) and a servo? I don't see much need for a servo for myself, particularly for that range. Be useful for filming plays, which don't have the budget for the lens. Plus I don't really film plays anymore anyway. I could see uses in sports, which I don't do much of.

I think I'd be more interested in a cine 24-70 T/3.

I can just imagine them coming out with all these hybrid lenses with no hard stops, and then later coming out with hybrid lenses which have AF, IS, and hard stops, making you want to sell your old hybrid and get the new one. I don't know how lenses are designed, but I would think it possible to have both. I've heard that the 17-120 has AF, and I believe it has hard stops too. Though, I haven't actually heard of anyone getting the 17-120's AF to work.
Click to expand...


Everyone has their own wants and needs. Hard stops and physical iris ring are valuable to me. IS and AF on this lens, not so much. If I'm using a 70-200, it's usually on a tripod for an interview. The stills version is not parfocal, but it is 'constant aperture'. You would bet a true cine version would be parfocal and the patent shows it as a constant T2.8 through the focal range.

70-200 is a good range for interviews when you need to stay out of a second(or third) cameras shot and especially in TV interviews where we tend to shoot much tighter than in narrative type setting.

The 17-120 does not have AF, at least not in the way you would equate to a still lens with an AF ON/OFF switch. It has servos for the zoom, focus and iris rings in the handgrip. Supposedly the 17-120 is able to work with the AF function on the 300 mkII, but I only have the original 300 and only know one person with a mkII, so I have not been able to test it personally to verify one way or the other.
 
Run&Gun said:
Supposedly the 17-120 is able to work with the AF function on the 300 mkII
Click to expand...

It does work with the dual pixel auto focus of the C300 MK II. It works pretty well actually. It's a little slower than the still lenses auto focus but it works for a lot of run and gun B-roll.
 
Run&Gun said:
Everyone has their own wants and needs. Hard stops and physical iris ring are valuable to me. IS and AF on this lens, not so much. If I'm using a 70-200, it's usually on a tripod for an interview. The stills version is not parfocal, but it is 'constant aperture'. You would bet a true cine version would be parfocal and the patent shows it as a constant T2.8 through the focal range.

70-200 is a good range for interviews when you need to stay out of a second(or third) cameras shot and especially in TV interviews where we tend to shoot much tighter than in narrative type setting.

The 17-120 does not have AF, at least not in the way you would equate to a still lens with an AF ON/OFF switch. It has servos for the zoom, focus and iris rings in the handgrip. Supposedly the 17-120 is able to work with the AF function on the 300 mkII, but I only have the original 300 and only know one person with a mkII, so I have not been able to test it personally to verify one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Personally would much prefer hard stops and physical iris as well. Also watching the new Angenieuxs for this reason.

Did not realize the 17 120 had AF function on the c300 mkii. Bummed I didn't get a chance to test it. Would appreciate hearing from anyone who has direct experience using this functionality.
 
Macaholic said:
It does work with the dual pixel auto focus of the C300 MK II. It works pretty well actually. It's a little slower than the still lenses auto focus but it works for a lot of run and gun B-roll.
Click to expand...

Would you rate it good enough to acquire, maintain and keep sharp focus on a subject walking towards or away from you, or the cam/subject relationship is constantly changing? I've seen some people post that they let the dpaf do its thing on interviews so they don't have to if a subject is moving(i.e: rocking back and forth/moving in a tight head shot wide open). Would it be able to perform in that situation?
 
Canon will introduce many lenses with IS and AF in cine-style bodies. They are focusing on the autofocus technologies and want that to be a big differentiator. To penetrate the top end of manual focus cine lenses, they want to give good AF as well as IS.

I like to zoom in into the shots, but the still lenses make it a bit jerky despite me trying very hard. So the new 18-80 style CN-E lenses will be a big boon. Even though the price of CN-E 18-80 L IS lens is some 7 times that of the 24-105, people are still buying it at 5K usd levels. I have the 24-70 f2.8 L IS II USM lens. If a cine version is launched in that 5K + range then I will definitely buy it. At 10k range, it won't make business sense for me at the moment.
 
I agree Sabyasachi. The playing field is crowded, especially after IBC, which seemed like the lens intro show of the century this year. What you outline is a smart strategy, if it is what Canon will actually do. I have to say, DPAF is essential to my work and one of the main reasons I bought into the system. If we could acquire the 18-80 and perhaps the 70-200 for around $11k to $12k for the pair, that would suffice for 90% of my shoots although I agree that the T4.4 18-80 is too slow for much of my work.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Anyone post this yet?

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/leaked-image-new-canon-70-200mm-cine-lens/

View attachment 122866
Click to expand...

If that image is right, and I'm guessing it is since it was what I expected when the rumor was posted, then the new lens is a t4.4 to match the 18-80mm. It should be priced about the same as the 18-80 and use the same servo grip. Frankly, I rarely use f/2.8 when trying to capture eng style footage at those focal lengths so the 4.4 would be fine. Of course, I am seriously tempted to get the the 18-80 and I would have no interest in the 70-200 at the same price point.
 
Thank you -- B&H and others use the same illustration for the 18-80, so I'm assuming the 70-200mm one is from Canon's end as well although the end part of the 70-200mm mount doesn't have any writing on it...

Canon.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top