I wasn't thinking of how they flatter faces so much as 'is this width suitable for "most" situations where you need to be "wide"' . .shooting a group of people in a small room, landscapes/exterior building shots, etc. etc. I would think even with people, most of the time being wide like that the face would only be a small part of the frame and not super "distort-y". If going in for a CU obviously zoom in unless you're going for a stylistic approach.
C300: to go lens for C300Mark2 24/70?
- Thread starter AlainAlain
- Start date
marvinhello
Well-known member
Are you using peripheral illumination correction and chromatic abberation correction with 11-24 and C300II?
Josh, I've got an extra 17-55 f/2.8 that I want to sell, if you're interested in getting a good deal on it. 17mm is wide enough for most situations, on the C-cameras. Going wider becomes an aesthetic choice, as in, do you want something to look kind of weird but cool.
cpreston
Veteran
For me, anything wider than a 17mm is a specialty shot. I really just think it is aesthetics for what you are willing to take in terms of perspective distortion. For corporate work, I don't even go below 24mm when people are in the foreground. I, personally, sold the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 a couple of years ago and haven't missed it at all. I prefer the L lenses for their feel and focus rings and the 18-135 stm has a far superior IS system.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Yes, as I wrote, totally depends on your situations you find yourself shooting. I photograph mostly Hollywood talent, people whose agents, managers and publicists are very picky about how their clients look and are often not afraid to get in my face to let me know that I had "better make their client look their best" so I obviously have different requirements than you do. Even if a face is small in the frame, the outer edge distortion is very noticeable at say, 14-17mm, it makes their heads and faces look stretched. I find the most flattering focal length for CUs and interviews to be 85mm. I like longer but problem is, if I shoot interviews with the 70-200 at say, 150mm, the camera has to physically be so far from the talent that that places the interviewer far from the talent and the interviewers and talent hate that. 6-10' from talent is where the producers and interviewers like to be so that puts me at a 50mm to 85mm FOV. YMMV. The 17-55 is a very useful focal length but personally, I don't see a huge difference in FOV from 17mm vs. 18mm.
Jim Feeley
Veteran
> I find the most flattering focal length for CUs and interviews to be 85mm.
I sometimes agree. No argument...but this is why that Sigma 50-100 f1.8 lens is kinda appealing to me. Ya, it reportedly breathes a lot. Ya, no IS. But I'd want to use it primarily for interviews as a variable prime so those aren't necessarily deal killers. Mainly so I can reframe a little without having to move the camera. Poking around the web reviews, I'm not sure that lens is the way to go. But I'll probably rent one soon and see what I think. On a C300mk1, btw.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/50-100mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-art
Anyone here used that lens for video?
I sometimes agree. No argument...but this is why that Sigma 50-100 f1.8 lens is kinda appealing to me. Ya, it reportedly breathes a lot. Ya, no IS. But I'd want to use it primarily for interviews as a variable prime so those aren't necessarily deal killers. Mainly so I can reframe a little without having to move the camera. Poking around the web reviews, I'm not sure that lens is the way to go. But I'll probably rent one soon and see what I think. On a C300mk1, btw.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/50-100mm-f1-8-dc-hsm-art
Anyone here used that lens for video?
control4userguy
Well-known member
C100MKII user here. Using peri. correction for the 11-24 (newer C100II firmware installed). Which reminds me, does anyone have inside info on the 7/28 update regarding EF (non-cine) lens features?
Last edited:
Thanks. I'm good right now. . .don't even have a camera yet!
cpreston
Veteran
I have the lens, although I haven't actually used it yet on a job. I tend to stick to the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 for interviews. Sometimes, I run into clients that really want the background out of focus on interviews, and that is when I figure I will bring out the Sigma 1.8 zooms. It's also useful for low light events when 2.8 won't cut it.
The focus breathing is baffling. It is not a lens that i would ever use while rack focusing. It's a 50-100 at infinity and a 75-150 at it's min focus of three feet. The focus ring is decent if you are trying to follow people shifting in their chair. It's a heavy lens, same size at the 70-200 IS 2.8. It's not a great lens by itself, but it is a fantastic compliment to the 18-35. The focus breathing and weight just make it less useful as a video lens than the 18-35 f/1.8.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I kind of got hyped on the Sigma 50-100 but when I really look at it, I have a 50mm 1.8 and am 85mm 1.8 that are probably going to be sharper and are definitely smaller, lighter and cheaper. I used to change focal lengths for interviews in between questions but when I did, I would rarely end up on the type of framing the client wanted for a given question so no my main client prefers to approve the frame and we shoot the entire interview in the one framing. So I no longer need a zoom to shoot interviews. If I am shooting 4K, the punch in works better than trying to reframe in between questions and I occasionally shoot 1080 and they reframe it and edit in 720 for web use. I was going to buy another C100 like Eric used to use (sometimes even three cameras) but for me, it is just too much gear to haul all of the grip and lighting and two cameras, sticks, lenses, etc. when one man banding it. Do-able when I get a grip/cam assistant/PA person but those shoots too are becoming more rare.
control4userguy
Well-known member
Anyway, this thread is so far off the topic. WHERE THE HELL IS THE 24~70 f2.8 L II IS ?? Is it too much to ask for a companion to the 70-200 2.8 L II IS?
Jim Feeley
Veteran
I hear you on all that. I wasn't thinking of reframing between questions. Too many problems in post as we move stuff around. Punching in on 4K works OK, ime, though I'd rather get the framing "right" on location. I was more thinking of the "scoot back a couple of inches" and "we need to move the lights a little" stuff on set up where I'd rather not keep moving my tripod back and forth.
Control, I'd also sure like a nice L-series quality 24-70 (or so) f/2.8 lens with good stabilization.
BTW- I'm not looking for a lens to do this (though on some jobs, I'm tempted)...
control4userguy
Well-known member
I had no idea Canon released yet another 18-135 variant. I also don't understand this at all. Can someone help me to understand why there is now a USM version? I can only guess this probably has something to do with that silly zoom motor accessory? So, three versions of the same FL zoom, brother!
It's slightly confusing, yes. Because the newest version (let's just call it the black ring version) doesn't bill itself as STM, even though it's nearly identical to the older STM version except for it's now called Nano USM.
The one benefit to the 18-135mm lens on the C300II, as I just found out in some testing, is that in slow motion crop mode (like 120fps), the IS continues to do its job. Whereas the IS turns off for other lenses like the 24-105mm and 70-200mm f4 IS. It also works with the 55-250mm STM, the 10-18mm STM, and the older (silver ring) 18-135mm STM. Those were the lenses I had around to test. IS might also work in other lenses that aren't STM but are new-ish. That's a pretty big difference in jitters if you're recording in slow motion crop mode with anything but a wide lens.
Cheers,
Slavik
Last edited:
control4userguy
Well-known member
^Well, OK. I guess I'm still not convinced that the world really needed a USM version of the 18-135. The STM 18-135's IS functions during a 60fps slow-mo on the C100II and I presume the same on a C300??
marvinhello
Well-known member
An IS version of the 24-70 II while maintaining its remarkable optical quality can be cost prohibitive, I'd say it's on Canon's roadmap, just need more R&D to bring the cost down to a reasonable range.
control4userguy
Well-known member
Really? And what premium might be attached to such a feature set? While countless 70-200 2.8 II IS units have sold for $2k and the current 24-70 2.8 is around $1700, why would it cost more than $2k to go to market? How many out there would just buy the damn thing if meant a tad more weight. What is it that prevents this lens from release? Tamron 24-70 Di VC at $1300 works, doesn't it? We've heard rumors that this lens is in the wild and has been theoretically for many months now.
On second thought, forget it, don't need that lens anyway.
Last edited:
Yeah in 60fps mode (not in the Slow&Fast mode), IS works fine for any lens. It's just in the crop slow motion mode - to get to 120fps - that IS only seems to work in the STM lenses as well as the new 18-135mm USM.
Cheers,
Slavik
control4userguy
Well-known member
^I guess I'm confused. I'm talking about a SHOOT rate of 60FPS, PLAYBACK rate of 30FPS for the slow motion effect. I don't know a thing about the C300, I just assumed it works roughly the same way. I don't really find any of this relevant to the issue of why Canon has yet another 18-135 lens on the street. If both the STM and USM work the same as you claim, why the two?
cpreston
Veteran
The USM lens works with the new zoom motor. That is the primary reason I think it is being released. Also, the AF is supposed to average about 3x faster.