C300: Rumored Canon CN-E 70-200

In the CR stills, the first one doesn't have the writing and the second one does.

I don't doubt that's the real lens; just a whimsical observation.
 
NorBro said:
In the CR stills, the first one doesn't have the writing and the second one does.

I don't doubt that's the real lens; just a whimsical observation.
Click to expand...

I think you are talking about the writing for the Japanese store. The pictures are scaled larger than the comments section allows so you have to pan the picture to see the writing. You will also notice a teleconverter connected on the end of the 70-200 in the second picture.CN-E 70-200 mm T4,4 L IS KAS S.jpg
 
Nevermind, I was talking about the text on the red mount...but you can't see it in that one illustration like you can with the 18-80mm.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 0
Run&Gun said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah I would be comfortable using it with that. Once it actually acquires focus it does a good job of keeping it sharp with minor moves (rocking subjects, subject walking towards camera or following subject) as well as all of the pretty B-roll your heart desires.

Another usability note to keep in mind is the fact that you can't use "AF Lock" because the auto focus requires the motor be engaged onto the lens from the servo unit. So if you hit AF Lock, the AF will stop, but you can't manually change focus without flipping the switch on the servo unit.
 
With the 18-80mm, from that same angle, you can see the writing in the back, but they are just illustrations as pointed out, so it's moot:

Canon.jpg
 
Hmm... T4.4 isn't ideal for interviews, I often end up more around F3.2/3.5 typically in interviews, although F3.5 probably IS close to T4.4 as far as actual exposure.
 
None of us will know for sure until/if Canon makes an announcement, but those are illustrations that look just like the 18-80(fairly trivial to change 18-80 to 70-200 in Photoshop) AND the known patent that Canon filed for a cine 70-200 in 2015 is for a T2.8.
 
puredrifting said:
Hmm... T4.4 isn't ideal for interviews, I often end up more around F3.2/3.5 typically in interviews, although F3.5 probably IS close to T4.4 as far as actual exposure.
Click to expand...

Considering something like the 70-200mm f2.8/L IS II has a T value of about 3.4 at f2.8, if you are shooting at F3.5 on such a lens, the T stop value would be about 4.4, so you'd be fine.

I know you are half agreeing with this, but considering the end of your sentence, I found the beginning about T4.4 not being "ideal for interviews" confusing. What you are actually saying is, "T4.4 is what I usually use for interviews, so this should be fine." Correct?
 
The 18-80 is T/4.4 (f/4). The 24-105 is T/5.1 (f/4) according to DXOmark. With the 24-105, you lose around a stop when zoomed in, so it then becomes about a T/6.7 at 105mm. The light transmission of the 18-80 is much better than the 24-105, as the 18-80 doesn't get darker when zoomed in so stays at T/4.4 at 80mm.

T-stop doesn't directly affect depth of field like f/stop does as T-stop is a measure of light transmission.

The 18-80's f/4 apurture will give close depth of field to Dan's prefered f/3.2-3.5. Dan, do you like those f-stops for interviews because you like the depth of field it provides, or because your lights max out at that f-stop when the camera is set to 850 ISO?

I typically like the tight shot on interviews at around f/4-5.6, but sometimes I'll shoot as high as f/2.8. For the wide shot I like f/2-4, with a shallower depth from the aputure than the tight, but since it's a wide angle, it has more depth of field from the focal length and distance from the subject, so by setting the aperture faster it's depth of field is closer to the depth of field of the tight shot.

I'd imagine the T/4.4 (f/4) would be good enough for me for the majority of interviews, and if I want faster, I'll just pull out the 70-200 f/2.8. With the cinema coatings, I'd suspect the image quality of the 18-80 to be better than the 70-200 so I'd lean toward using the 18-80 more often. Though, sometimes I also want a longer focal length than 80mm for the tight interview shot as well.

I suspect my three cam interview setup if I get the 18-80 will be 15.5-47 T/2.8 (f/2.5) for the wide (or Sigma 18-35 is I want it shallower), 18-80 for the tight, and 70-200 for the off-axis tight.
 
mizzar said:
Considering something like the 70-200mm f2.8/L IS II has a T value of about 3.4 at f2.8, if you are shooting at F3.5 on such a lens, the T stop value would be about 4.4, so you'd be fine.

I know you are half agreeing with this, but considering the end of your sentence, I found the beginning about T4.4 not being "ideal for interviews" confusing. What you are actually saying is, "T4.4 is what I usually use for interviews, so this should be fine." Correct?
Click to expand...

It is a combination of EV, DOF and focal length. I like the bokeh the lens gives me at F3.2 to 3.5. That was part of my point, I don't like the DOF at T4.4 as much as F3.2 at my typical subject 8'-10' from camera and 8'-12' from the background, although the difference side by side at the same focal length is probably subtle.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
The 18-80 is T/4.4 (f/4). The 24-105 is T/5.1 (f/4) according to DXOmark. With the 24-105, you lose around a stop when zoomed in, so it then becomes about a T/6.7 at 105mm. The light transmission of the 18-80 is much better than the 24-105, as the 18-80 doesn't get darker when zoomed in so stays at T/4.4 at 80mm.

T-stop doesn't directly affect depth of field like f/stop does as T-stop is a measure of light transmission.

The 18-80's f/4 apurture will give close depth of field to Dan's prefered f/3.2-3.5. Dan, do you like those f-stops for interviews because you like the depth of field it provides, or because your lights max out at that f-stop when the camera is set to 850 ISO?
Click to expand...

DOF and I can usually pull a F4-F5.6 with my Aputure LS 1S, with the small Chimera as key source but the larger medium Chimera takes more light to fill up so then I am maxed at around an F3.5. The doc I am currently shooting we are using the medium Chimera here in the states with the LS 1S key and another LS 1S underneath it, punched through a 42" diffusion disc. Director likes the modeling and falloff I am giving him on the faces with this setup. Focal length is 85 to 88mm but from about 12' away to still give us a medium shot, directive was "don't make the interviews look like TV, make them look more cinematic" so the medium framing on the interviews help to achieve that.
 
Looks good. But that cable... Still worry that it's waiting to get whacked by someone in a hurry.... Would love a right-angle connector. Anyone here have any experience with the 18-80 and found the cable connector to not be a potential hazard? Besides that, looks like a nice bit of glass...

HR_CN-E70-200_T44L_IS_ZSG-C10_SIDE_CL.jpg
 
If you've got it rigged up on a plate with rods and support that's usually enough clearance to avoid any pressure on the connector.

Zacuto does a right angle extension cable but it's only 6 inches. Varizoom should have some longer extension cables out any minute now, around 20ft. , but I don't think they have the right angles.
 
I have both a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II and Canon 70-200/4 IS and I find the later boring in visual look in comparison to the F2.8 and I guess this new Canon CN 70-200 shares much of the 70-200/4 IS L lens. Even with speedbooster it doesn't fly like the F2.8.

But as far as the lighter weight and smaller size I do like how the 70-200/4 feels on my FS7.
 
Last edited:
Received an email this morning, "Damn I'm good" from one of my people that said it was probably gonna shake out like this instead of the T2.8. Also said pricing would probably be in the ballpark of the 18-80 and they would be surprised if it was $7k or higher. Then they also said there are supposedly more announcements coming.

As far as this lens goes:
Disappointing. Slow at T4.4, EF mount only and that hybrid still lens design with no hard focus stops is crap. Who wants to have to peer around the side of the lens and look into a little window to see the witness marks, if you can even consider them, that?

Maybe I'm just underestimating the market, because I'm only looking at it from my perspective, but I think a fully manual T2.8 version in PL and EF (ability to add a swappable mount system like the others) priced around $10K would have flown out the door.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top