C100: Starter kit

V

victormgros

New member
Hello everybody
I have been reading the forum for a long time but never posted, but now I need your advice
I'll switch from the ex1r next month and I have doubts about the lenses

Ill buy:
24-105
70-200 f4 is
tokina 11-16
rokinon 35 and 85mm
ninja 2

And...
100mm macro 2.8 or 17-55 2.8?
which one will you choose?
Im going for the 100mm but I wanted to know your opinion. Someone will say I should get the 17-55 instead of the 24-105


are you using a rig?
Any must have accessories?

thanks guys!
 
victormgros said:
Hello everybody
I have been reading the forum for a long time but never posted, but now I need your advice
I'll switch from the ex1r next month and I have doubts about the lenses

Ill buy:
24-105
70-200 f4 is
tokina 11-16
rokinon 35 and 85mm
ninja 2

And...
100mm macro 2.8 or 17-55 2.8?
which one will you choose?
Im going for the 100mm but I wanted to know your opinion. Someone will say I should get the 17-55 instead of the 24-105


are you using a rig?
Any must have accessories?

thanks guys!
Click to expand...

what kind of projects do you shoot?
 
24-105 = no, too old, and C100 is S35 which is 2x crop, this is like 48 - 210. useless
70-200 f4 is = maybe
tokina 11-16 = no
rokinon 35 and 85mm = what ?


let me get this straight, if you like prime more, then build a rokinon set and go from there. saves you money

if you want to do run n gun, go for 17-55, nothing else.

for me, your kit is like throwing money to water, this kit seems like no "AIM" at all, you seem buying everything.

NINJA 2, no need, unless you have contract with big broadcast companies and they demand 422. If not, then save this 1.5k
 
My experience with the C300 is that an EF 16-35 2.8L or similar is a must have. Used it on a show and besides the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L I had, I used the 16-35L almost entirely for this show, even for medium shots.
 
I do mainly internet advertising, run and gun (events) and documentary for TV

I want the primes and they are cheap, but also need more versatility.

Other thing is I will use an EF mount camera as a B cam, don't ask me which one, i'm still thinking.

Many differents opinions hehe

thanks
 
You need the 24-105. It has good range, build quality and IS. It is a few years old, which means you can get it pretty cheap.

At a 1.5x crop on the C100 sensor, it will not cover the wide end for those epic looking shots. Another downside is that the actual transmission is equal to about T5.2 constant over the range.

I would think twice about any lens not having IS. But thinking twice doesn't mean I wouldn't buy it... It's just that no IS means you are restricted to tripod use unless you have a serious "steadirig".

Also, consider it a "tip" to start small with the camera and one or two lenses and then live with the camera until you know what you need. There's much to investigate before you have to pull the trigger on a Ninja2.
 
victormgros said:
Hello everybody
I have been reading the forum for a long time but never posted, but now I need your advice
I'll switch from the ex1r next month and I have doubts about the lenses

Ill buy:
24-105
70-200 f4 is
tokina 11-16
rokinon 35 and 85mm
ninja 2

And...
100mm macro 2.8 or 17-55 2.8?
which one will you choose?
Im going for the 100mm but I wanted to know your opinion. Someone will say I should get the 17-55 instead of the 24-105


are you using a rig?
Any must have accessories?

thanks guys!
Click to expand...

Hi
If you feel you need all this then I say go for it. I have a 17-55 Tamron VC II so my vote is for this lens. It's a little wider than the 24-105 and for me is what I need for a lot of the cramped situations I work in.

I also have the Ninja 2 as I got a great deal in a C100 + Ninja 2 bundle. I love it as I use FCPx and can import ProRes without transcoding etc. For run and gun handheld use it makes the camera a little heavy but still manageable.

I also have access to Rokinon 35 and 85 lenses which if I like I might invest in some day!

You will always receive opinions based on people's experiences and what they currently own but in the end you need to decide what you need.

Regards

Drew
 
I agree with Andree.

One more thing to chuck in here.

I had a similar dilemma recently. However, I also need a lens set that I could use effectively for stills on a 5D3, as well as the C100 - so that ruled out the EF-S lenses, such as the 17-55.

I went for the Tokina 11-16, Canon 16-35, Canon 24-105 (my "standard" lens - IS crucial at these focal lengths, in my opinion) and 70-200/2.8 (heavier, but I really needed that extra stop recently on a low light, low contrast corporate shoot.)

I haven't bought an external recorder and would only do so if I'm shooting for broadcast.

Ben.
 
victormgros said:
24-105
70-200 f4 is
tokina 11-16
rokinon 35 and 85mm
ninja 2

And...
100mm macro 2.8 or 17-55 2.8?
are you using a rig?
Any must have accessories?
Click to expand...

Victor, you've pretty much described my set too - although I went 17-55 instead of 100 Macro. The latter is on my list - it's a great bit of glass (a friend has one).

I still use my EX1s regularly, though my C100 has become the main camera for R&G Corporate events. The key thing about Run & Gun is you DON'T want to be caught changing lenses, so even though there's overlap between the 17-55 and 24-105, it's nice to have BOTH... the former is more of a GV and up-close lens, the latter is for reaching in and being more 'candid'. It's also perfect for talking head stuff where DoF isn't quite as critical. Either way, your mid-ground is covered and you're choosing between reach and DoF for a given situation.

I'm actually considering a Canon 18-135 or even 18-200 for those assignments when you have absolutely no idea what's going to happen next (I do corporate events that have involved jumping in a van to a souk, scooting around in the trees somewhere, all that sort of stuff). I used the Sony SE18200 a lot on my FS100, and whilst it was a pig to drive, it was handy to make the FS100 into a faux EX1. At f8, I got better DoF than the EX1 at f2.8, so don't be put off by apertures of f4 or even f5.6.

One thing I HAVE NO INTERESTING AT ALL is... a rig. That was what put me off my beloved little FS100. I kept adding 'just one more bit' until the rig cost more than the camera (not quite, but nearly) and I ended up with a big heavy monster that couldn't keep up with the twists and turns of my average shoot. The C100 just 'works'. For me, that is.

I thought I'd be using my Pix220 for chromakey, but have yet to be in the need for its ProRes. It's coming on shoots now as a sort of 'Director's monitor' as the C100 screen doesn't fold frontwards and I'm often left to set up for talking head interviews alone. So it can get really hard to set up lighting and framing without some way of continuous monitoring. I also forgot how often I'd flip a viewfinder to show interviewees where their hands have to be if they want to wave them (I hate 'flying thumbs' on MCUs), so I'd highly recommend at least a 5" monitor on a lighting stand.

Oh - forgot - Image Stabilisation... If you're going to make use of the C100's excellent handheld ergonomics, or even just use a long zoom lens with a zoom in-shot, you'll need an IS lens. I don't go with all this macho 'I don't need IS, I can hand-hold this' - I'm an editor and see plenty of rushes that hit the floor because of micro-jitters, the stuff you can't see in the viewfinder but is painfully obvious on the edit monitor, and no - stabilising in post isn't going to work for that because each frame has its own unique motion blur and it looks total pants. IS helps enormously and is worth putting up with the lesser lens in exchange for IS.
 
Last edited:
Without IS (image stabilisation) don't do handheld unless you are Arnold Schwarzenegger.

For stills and filming in tripod I use the 24-70 f2.8 L USM and 16-25 f2.8 L. However, for filming handheld I go back to the 24-105 f4 L IS USM due to its IS. This lens is an allround utility lens and is a big help.

The crop factor in the C300/C100 sensor is close to 1.5 and not 2x. The exif details in the Canon XF utility plugin shows the equivalent optical focal length.

The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is heavier than its f4 cousin. However, I prefer it due to the great IS and low light ability. I even use it at times for interviews for CU and throw the junk lying on tables and/or backgrounds etc out of focus. 70-200 f4 on the other hand is cheaper, light weight, takes less space in the bag.

Canon EF 100 mm f2.8 L IS macro lens is sharp and has great IS. Nice to get some textures, patterns in the close ups, at times close up of eyes for a quick cut of micro-expression if the narrative demands it etc. In ENG situations, at times one can use this to get a completely different perspective than what others are getting and hence stand out.
 
AndreeOnline said:
You need the 24-105. It has good range, build quality and IS. It is a few years old, which means you can get it pretty cheap.

At a 1.5x crop on the C100 sensor, it will not cover the wide end for those epic looking shots. Another downside is that the actual transmission is equal to about T5.2 constant over the range.

I would think twice about any lens not having IS. But thinking twice doesn't mean I wouldn't buy it... It's just that no IS means you are restricted to tripod use unless you have a serious "steadirig".

Also, consider it a "tip" to start small with the camera and one or two lenses and then live with the camera until you know what you need. There's much to investigate before you have to pull the trigger on a Ninja2.
Click to expand...

On a crop APS-C I've used a 30mm prime (the sigma) without IS handheld and it has very little shake. I ended up having good experiences with narratives due to not needing long shots. However, for events I couldn't do without a rig.
 
Hey, I really appreciate your advices, thanks guys

Sure I will buy IS lenses, maybe I didn't detailed in the first post.
I need to have a lot of options from the beginning, that's why I'm buying the "full kit". And I'm forced to buy it all at once.

Do you prefer 70-200 2.8 IS over f4 IS? I know it's better but its also heavier, I've read opinions about the f4 is best option for the c100 with its low light capabilities. Need to think about it, I could buy two lenses for the 2.8 IS price

MattDavis, you would go for the 17-55 and the 24-105, maybe its a good choice yeah
 
victormgros said:
Do you prefer 70-200 2.8 IS over f4 IS? I know it's better but its also heavier, I've read opinions about the f4 is best option for the c100 with its low light capabilities. Need to think about it, I could buy two lenses for the 2.8 IS price
Click to expand...

I went with the 70-200 f4 IS and am very happy. The two position IS (position 2 specifically) has been wonderful on tripod from the back of a ballroom as I follow speakers pacing back and forth on a stage. I have not wanted for the f2.8 at all thanks to the C100's gr8 performance at ISO 3200 and 4000. IMHO, it's a must have lens.
 
I bought the 70-200 f4 because I can get it in the pocket of my Scott-e-vest jerkins. All my lenses must fit in, so I can be working with 3 lenses, an extra battery, a short shotgun and lav kit, XLR cable, headphones of some sort, a small towel (!!!) and a lens cleaning kit. And a carrier bag just in case I need to go out in the rain, or it gets dusty or sandy. I've worked with a lovely Tokina 80-200 f2.8, but it was just too big and heavy. The following metaphor will be lost on non-UK people, but it was like parking a Jeep at Sainsburys. Far too much stress. Nice pictures, but I couldn't follow focus it for interviews - too risky.

Yes, Victor - I'd go for both 24-105 AND the 17-55, ASSUMING you do Corporate Events. The 24-105 is the single go-to lens, followed by the 70-200, followed by the 17-55, followed by the Tokina 11-16. I also have the Sigma 50 1.4 in the bag and that's great for certain interviews, I have a Nikon 10mm fisheye that gets used 4-8 times a year.

I've just seen some reports of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and I'm in love: http://philipbloom.net/forum/threads/one-lens.9010/#post-21205

So welcome to the Honorable Club of Lens Sluts. We want it all. Primes, zooms, lens-whacks, even this:

https://vimeo.com/61688656

But honestly, the C100 has Continual AF for some lenses, and I feel - somewhat abashed - that this is an important thing when you want to wave your C100 over huge crouds when it's on a monopod and you're doing a pseudo-crane move. But on the other hand, those Sigma 35mm 1.4 shots are so sublime, who couldn't resist it for their Corporate Docco? And, well, anamorphic is just one stage beyond. Really. Takes the 'film look' and turns it beyond 11. Sorry guys, addicted to glass.
 
I know what you're saying.

"The Canon 18-135 lens will have Continual AF when the C100 update is released later this year."

Whilst that information is stated publically, one cannot possibly comment on other lens combinations.

Does that statement suit? ;)
 
MattDavis said:
I know what you're saying.

The Canon 18-135 lens will have Continual AF when the update is released later this year.

Does that statement suit? ;)
Click to expand...

I wasn't being snotty Matt. It's always a safe assumption that you know something I don't. I guess I'll have to buy me the 18-135. :-)

I'll bug you again when I need help installing the update. ;-)
 
The 24-105 IS is a great lens on the C100. I use it on every shoot especially for handheld. I like to get wide then tight of the same action and the 24-105 does this well. If you get the Kit it's only $600 more. No brainier.

Rokinon Cine or AF if you prefer. 35mm and 85mm are the best lenses you can find for the price. They are both very sharp. The 85mm flares in a bad way so be aware and use the hood if lights or sun can hit the lens. Small price to pay for such a value.

I have the Canon 70-200 f4 L non IS. I'm going to sell it and get a new one with IS. I dont need the weight and speed since the C100 shoots incredible images at high ISO and shallow depth of field comes naturally with longer lenses.

s35 is a 1.5 crop sensor. Take the lens and times it by 1.5 for field of view of that lens. Remember. A 50mm is always a 50mm no matter what camera it's on. The image gets cropped not magnified. When using a 35mm to have the same framing of a 50mm you need to step back a couple feet. The natural characteristics of a 35mm remain the same so you will have more background or less compressed background with that shot as compared to a 50mm on a full frame camera.

Examples of lenses with 1.5 crop factor added.

11mm x 1.5 = 16.5mm
24mm x 1.5 = 36mm
35mm x 1.5 = 52.5mm
50mm x 1.5 = 75mm
75mm x 1.5 = 112.5mm
100mm x 1.5 = 150mm

I think it's important to remind readers on the board that this is the case since it's the most missed understood factor about lenses and sensor size.

I have the Duclos 11-16 in PL and I'm considering getting it converted to EF mount. However, I haven't used APS-C lenses yet on the C cameras. I know you change the setting in the camera for them, but wouldn't that be a PITA when your shooting to be changing settings in the menu after each lens change? I probably wouldn't use the lens.

So many choices. Oh and dont forget a fast 50mm! Everybody needs one. Hopefully by the end of the year Rokinon will have one ready.

732107.jpg
This Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM Ultra-Wide Zoom Lens has caught my eye. Oh the fun you can have with this one! I know it's slow at F4 but again it doesn't matter since the C cameras shoot so clean at high ISO. I have the Lumix 7-14 for GH3 and AF-100 and its great.

8mm x 1.5 = 12mm
16 x 1.5 = 24mm

I bought the Ninja 2 used and I'm glad to have it if I need it. It wont be used much. I'm not a fan of external recorders and like to keep the camera light and simple. The AVCHD codec holds up fine. A little bit of pain to edit with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top