G
Guest
Guest
Womp womp
C300: The New Canon C300 Mark III and New 25 - 250mm Zoom Lens
- Thread starter Pascal Parvex
- Start date
Womp womp
G
Guest
Guest
With all the amazing tech going into cellphones, which are often using sensors in the 2/3” size range, ENG cameras are really missing out on the opportunity to copy past some great features. Hopefully they catch on in the near future.I always want to start wide, you can push in with zoom, doublers or digital pushin.
I think it manufactuers problem - there are load of 18-200 and the like for £500 - what could they do for £3000.
Or a 2/3 camera with log 10/12 bit and HFR the size of an EVA.. id have that
S
Imagine a really well made iPhone with a B4 mount zoom and an ergonomic body.
Anyway, i we are talking theory, and in that sense, yeah, start ultra wide and zoom in. But currently only 2/3” and 16mm really have those options.
Panasonic has an opportunity to make M43 amazing, but not even they are risking the investment to make ultra wide and long servo zooms. At least not that i am aware of. Not at the level of ENG fujinon’s or Canon. And no one is really risking it on M43 format other than a few cheaper “safe” zooms. Just don’t know if there really is a need for m43 and ff35 to take over. They certainly make an interesting team. The digital rebirth of s16 and s35 equivalant? Or stick with 2/3” and s35?
I get the kind of lens you want. But i’ve never seen a handhold able s35 lens that covers range i want at the T stop i want and at the sharpness i want. The fact that Canon made the 25-250mm in a runn’gun form factor is kind of cool to me. Thought they’d be more annoying and go 28-280mm, or 30-300mm. But 25-250mm +1.5x is actually really functional. Means i can even shoot head n shoulders in a car interior. I just can’t shoot the whole car interior. But i can shoot a close up of the musician on the stage, without having to be on the stage. And then i can swing around and get waist up of the crowd. No saying it would be my lens of choice for every project. And if i had full access to subjects, i may even go primes... or even just a prime. I shot a project on a 35mm and that changed my mind about needing wider lenses. Of course we need wider lenses, but you know what i mean.
The 25-250mm exists. It is already made. The lens you want, doesn’t exist yet. The lens you want, would be cool. But 25mm-75mm is my comfort zone, and i find myself needing reach in tricky situations. So, that 250mm of non-doubly image quality sounds compelling. Could put a 0.7x wide angle optic on the front. Probably less a image quality hit that then doubler. But i find uktra wides like the tokina 11-20mm to be easy to carry around and quick to swap out, yet the 25mm would alway be wide enough to catch spontaneous moments, should i not have time to switch. 25mm is a very human wide. And that is why i am surprised Canon did that. Only other s35 zooms that cover that range are hulking beast cinema zooms. Goven our available options, Canon covered some very forgiving ranges in the 17-120 and the 25-250.
You mention dual lens setups. That would be cool too. Haha! You are talking so many hyptotheticals! But yeah, dual lenses. DZO makes these little M43 zooms. 10-22mm and 20-70mm. They aren’t much bigger than some s35 primes! They could be the business end of a dual sensor camera. And since the lenses are the same size they would get in each other’s shots.
In my world, i’d love to shoot as your bcam op. You on the 17-120 and me on the 25-250.
G
Guest
Guest
Zeiss made the 21-100mm. I only ever heard people complain “not wide enough” or “not long enough”. Thought it was interesting, because the lens covers the entire normal range. Yet, i guess it never did anything special. But i’d imagine in use it was quite practical. But i never saw one in use.
Barry - I guess I need to go back and look at that video again. I thought the "window" in that test showed nothing but a highlight - controlled lighting from behind it - not an actual outdoor, uncontrolled scene. I agree about shooting indoors & seeing bright sun light presenting the toughest DR scene. I'm forced to do it all the time for one of my clients... hence why I'm quite interested to see those 16 stops and how they appear squeezed into Rec709 space.
Grug
Veteran
It's a terrific piece of glass, and has (in my opinion at least) a noticeably more pleasant image than the direct competition from Fuji. And on the slightly wider 26.2mm sensor of the C300iii, it will actually give you a FoV equivalent to 19-91mm (which is pretty damned handy as far as ranges go).
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Of course its not wide enough .. because it is not wide enough.. simple.
The engineers in the design meeting just dont get that. They must bite that bullet. S35 21 or S35 25 is pants
ENG peeps have been using a 4.7 for an age the stills guy like me now shooting video have been shoot 24mm FF for an age. That is how we think.
In 1991 I had my nikon with 24, 50 135 full frame (T2), for $1500 (not a zoom but two bodies) now 25 years later I dont have that even though Ive spent $70k on video crap
It has a track record of working! S35 21 in a car and you cant get a shot really.
G
Guest
Guest
Of course its not wide enough .. because it is not wide enough.. simple.
The engineers in the design meeting just dont get that. They must bite that bullet. S35 21 or S35 25 is pants
ENG peeps have been using a 4.7 for an age the stills guy like me now shooting video have been shoot 24mm FF for an age. That is how we think.
In 1991 I had my nikon with 24, 50 135 full frame (T2), for $1500 (not a zoom but two bodies) now 25 years later I dont have that even though Ive spent $70k on video crap
It has a track record of working! S35 21 in a car and you cant get a shot really.
Ok, so, someone needs to make a 15-150mm +1.5x for the ultimate s35 run and gun ENG 10x lens. And what is a good price?
It's not like computers though (Moore's Law lol)... lens range can't magically increase over time without getting huge and expensive. It takes layers and layers of glass to bend the light in a way that gives you more zoom range.
You can get cheap photo lenses that are like 18-200, but the max aperture is horrifically slow, the distortion is real, they're not parfocal etc.
You can get cheap photo lenses that are like 18-200, but the max aperture is horrifically slow, the distortion is real, they're not parfocal etc.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
As I said somewhere else I started in stills in thee early 1990 on 24-135 FF which is something like 16-100
Hi
Im a realist with a basic concept of optics. You are right 18-200 pretty horrific 17-120 not affordable so lets us go to town marrying the two. (While the 18-200 sony is horrific I did use it for 90% of my last trip to Zambia and for a recent bundle with the environment girl greta it is sometimes the best of a bad set of options.)
What is important here is the ability to compromise taking into account the high iso capabilities of modern cameras. Also post and metadata.
Lets stick with 17 as the base design (not the ideal 16) allow 25% more distortion (all mapped, meta data stored in file, unmungle files issued to resolve) lets go down to 95mm (slightly less than my desired 100), cheapen the build a little (similar to canon 70-200) lose half stop of light, allow 50mm of tromboning and 10% more vignetting, put the rear elelemt inside the flange making it unusable on DSLRs, and I reckon you get to $4000, maybe $3000?
You may note how canon are not mugs.. have I just described the 18-80???
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Morgan, please remember it's always short sighted to speak as if your own needs are the same as everyone else's.
We never see Roger Deakins shooting with an 11mm, so clearly his needs do not call for such wide lenses. Just one example of many. In my own case, as I'd already mentioned, I have often used the 24-105 as a go to lens for run n gun shooting, and have found it quite useful, often preferring it over the wider and less long range of my 18-80. In most cases when I'm shooting with still lenses I have my Tokina 11-20 with me in my bag, but there are certainly some shoots where the 11-20 doesn't end up getting used. There are just many shoots where going ultra wide is never needed.
I just did a shoot with my 17-120 on one Amira and 30-105 on the second Amira, shooting run n' gun b-roll and interviews. The ranges, shorter focus throw, and servo of the 17-120 make it more suitable for run n' gun than the 30-105. At times I've considered getting a second 17-120 to have two ideal lens setups for two camera shoots. Now with the 25-250 available, that's a very tempting and likely better companion for a 17-120 than a second 17-120 would be. In many two camera setups, the setup is one wide camera and one tight camera. It's rare that you would need two cameras both shooting in the 17-25mm range at the same time, so having two lens and camera setups that cover 17-250 (+1.5x) going at once would be a pretty awesome setup if you ask me.
I got my 17-120 used for $12.5k. ENG, sports, and high end event is a lower percentage of my work, while corporate and doc is more of my work, so it'd be more difficult to swallow the $30k price tag of buying new. I could justify spending $30k+ on say Arri Signature primes as the commercial and narrative market can afford rentals for such lenses, but for ENG style work it's a tougher sell to me. Something I'd consider as I do do a fair amount of work in that sector and it'd be a nice lens to have, but it may be something I'd wait awhile on purchasing. The 17-120 came out six years ago for $30k, so in six years from now the 25-250 could possibly be found on Ebay for $12.5k as well. And between now and six years, at varying more affordable price points such as $20k.
We never see Roger Deakins shooting with an 11mm, so clearly his needs do not call for such wide lenses. Just one example of many. In my own case, as I'd already mentioned, I have often used the 24-105 as a go to lens for run n gun shooting, and have found it quite useful, often preferring it over the wider and less long range of my 18-80. In most cases when I'm shooting with still lenses I have my Tokina 11-20 with me in my bag, but there are certainly some shoots where the 11-20 doesn't end up getting used. There are just many shoots where going ultra wide is never needed.
I just did a shoot with my 17-120 on one Amira and 30-105 on the second Amira, shooting run n' gun b-roll and interviews. The ranges, shorter focus throw, and servo of the 17-120 make it more suitable for run n' gun than the 30-105. At times I've considered getting a second 17-120 to have two ideal lens setups for two camera shoots. Now with the 25-250 available, that's a very tempting and likely better companion for a 17-120 than a second 17-120 would be. In many two camera setups, the setup is one wide camera and one tight camera. It's rare that you would need two cameras both shooting in the 17-25mm range at the same time, so having two lens and camera setups that cover 17-250 (+1.5x) going at once would be a pretty awesome setup if you ask me.
I got my 17-120 used for $12.5k. ENG, sports, and high end event is a lower percentage of my work, while corporate and doc is more of my work, so it'd be more difficult to swallow the $30k price tag of buying new. I could justify spending $30k+ on say Arri Signature primes as the commercial and narrative market can afford rentals for such lenses, but for ENG style work it's a tougher sell to me. Something I'd consider as I do do a fair amount of work in that sector and it'd be a nice lens to have, but it may be something I'd wait awhile on purchasing. The 17-120 came out six years ago for $30k, so in six years from now the 25-250 could possibly be found on Ebay for $12.5k as well. And between now and six years, at varying more affordable price points such as $20k.
As mrtreve pointed out, larger zoom range than 17-120 so if the aperture is the same scientifically speaking we'd have to assume it'd be a larger and heavier lens, which is not conducive for ENG as the 17-120 is already quite large and heavy.
Last edited:
From a technical perspective, various crops can yield sufficient reach and width at the expense of resolution. With 6K type sensors, this shouldn't be too much of a sacrifice to make.
PS. Samsung 108 MPX sensor is 70mm2, while most 40-60 MPX are around 40-45mm2, 2/3" is 58, 1" is 116, MFT is 225, APS-C 332-370 depending on a manufacturer, full frame 856-864, Alexa LF 937, Alexa65 1384.
And Samsung says they're working on a 600 MPX sensor. I just hope it has IBIS.
PS. Samsung 108 MPX sensor is 70mm2, while most 40-60 MPX are around 40-45mm2, 2/3" is 58, 1" is 116, MFT is 225, APS-C 332-370 depending on a manufacturer, full frame 856-864, Alexa LF 937, Alexa65 1384.
And Samsung says they're working on a 600 MPX sensor. I just hope it has IBIS.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Eric
Mr Deakins doesnt really define the usual world of corporate live and ENG
I think I speak the needs of a bunch of people who probably used, or still use a 4.5mm eng lens on a 2/3 camera, the directors and editors they serve.
In the UK I think a lot of compretent doc is 2/3 still.
--
Back to my initial point which is that 25-250 that doesnt cover full frame is not a great 'standard' zoom for the C500ii or the C300iii
It seemed to me that the launching of the lens hand in hand with an S35 camera somewhat odd and confusing for some who may not know that 25=25 and 25 is only wide on FF35.
Im much more up for discussion of the camera.
S
Mr Deakins doesnt really define the usual world of corporate live and ENG
I think I speak the needs of a bunch of people who probably used, or still use a 4.5mm eng lens on a 2/3 camera, the directors and editors they serve.
In the UK I think a lot of compretent doc is 2/3 still.
--
Back to my initial point which is that 25-250 that doesnt cover full frame is not a great 'standard' zoom for the C500ii or the C300iii
It seemed to me that the launching of the lens hand in hand with an S35 camera somewhat odd and confusing for some who may not know that 25=25 and 25 is only wide on FF35.
Im much more up for discussion of the camera.
S
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I don't understand why you keep mentioning that the 25-250 does not cover full frame; it does with 1.5x activated. The lens is pretty much equally capable on Super35 as it is on Full Frame. On full frame, it loses a stop of light, but then gains around a stop of light from the lower noise of full frame, and in terms of field of view/framing (whatever the proper term is), the math is essentially 25 x 1.5 -1.5 = 25mm, so the framing is the same on Super35 as it is on full frame with the 1.5x activated. The only difference is with full frame you can't use it without the 1.5x, which makes it less versatile on full frame than on Super35. So I'd say that the lens is more suited for Super35 than full frame because you get more range and versatility with the lens with Super35 as Super35 can be used with or without the 1.5x. Ultimately, though, it does work well with both formats.
And again, yeah, it won't go all that wide on either formats, but if you don't need wide, you don't need wide, so I'm not sure where the confusion on this aspect is. Clearly if one needs a lens wider than 25mm this is not the lens for them (which sounds to be your case). Like I'd mentioned, if my A-cam has a 17-120 on it, it's quite likely that my B-cam will not need to be in the 17-25 range of wide as well, so I would likely prefer the versatility of the B-cam having the addition of the 120-250 (+1.5x) range.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Eric - we both get it. Others dont. 25 is proper wide on full frame - but this only covers full frame when extended to 37 which is not wide. 25 is not proper wide on S35.
I said twice befre it is legit in a mlticam setup
I said twice befre it is legit in a mlticam setup
G
Guest
Guest
Why do you think a small long servo zoom doesn’t exist? Or why are stills lenses so compact, and video zooms so huge?Eric - we both get it. Others dont. 25 is proper wide on full frame - but this only covers full frame when extended to 37 which is not wide. 25 is not proper wide on S35.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I believe the 17-120 was just over $31K when introduced in 2014. By 2016 it had been dropped by $5K, getting it down to a more manageable $26k+, and when I jumped in.
Which is part of the reason that this lens is so amazing. Vs the 17-120: They extended the zoom range from 7x to 10x, they kept the aperture the same range(T2.95-T3.9) plus it doesn't start to ramp until almost 7x, they added an extender, kept it in essentially the same sized "package" as the 17-120 only increasing the weight by 3/10 lb and all at an introductory price more than $1,000 less. Maybe we see it at ~$25K by 2022. Or maybe they start tacking on rebates much sooner, because of the economy.
I talked to my rep yesterday and they said what a lot of us are saying, this lens will sale and be in-demand. They are already getting inquiries and people ordering. And while they don't think they will sale boatloads, because of our current world situation, if you are serious about wanting one, it's not a bad idea to go ahead and get your name in, because of the aforementioned world situation, Canon USA will not be ordering as many as they normally would.
Run&Gun
Veteran
15-150 was one of my suggestions a few years ago. That or 12-120.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Because still lenses don't have to perform in the same way as video/motion lenses, at least historically speaking.
Video Lenses(typically):
Constant Volume(don't trombone)
Inner Focus
Smooth, constant "live" zoom
Don't go back and forth between pin-cushion and barrel distortion while zooming
Usually fairly well controlled focus breathing(depends on lens)
Smooth manual iris
Servo capable of repeatable, ultra smooth, variable speed zooms
Long zoom ratios, coupled with
Fast aperture(a lot are between f1.3-f1.7 starting out)
Heavier duty construction-at least with ENG lenses, they become a "structural" part of the camera, with the camera being held/controlled by the op by the lens grip.
Economies of scale: Even expensive sill lenses are being sold by the tens of thousands vs maybe hundreds of ENG lenses.
rob norton
Veteran
Is parfocal a less desired quality now that AF is getting really good?