What is the C300 handling like with IS lens?

B

bradleyg5

New member
Hey, I was just looking for videos showing how well the C300 handling is with lens like the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS 100mm F/2.8 IS and other Image stablization lens, can't seem to find any.

Basically I'm interested in getting a C100 and would like to see how practical it is to handhold shots up high and also if holding the camera down low by the handle looks decent while moving.
 
I have shot extensively with my C 300 and both the 17-55 and the 24-105 IS lenses. The IS is quite good with those lenses and that's part of the reason I use them with this camera. Please understand that I was doing quite a bit of documentary shooting on a ship in the south pacific, confined quarters , lots of ship movement and lots of me moving around. I am very happy with the performance of those IS lenses in this situation and other documentary situations. The lenses are not steadicams by any account but they do a remarkable job of reducing a lot of the hand induced movement out of the image.
 
Thanks a lot. That video is exactly what I wanted to see:cheesy:, movement with the IS on looks very natural and if used properly would even add to the scene. Would love to see even more examples :D

This camera is seeming more and more like a do it all system, huge low priced lens selection, IS that works seemingly as well as 3 ccd cameras, and high ISO performance that can still allow you to stop down for depth of field.
 
bradleyg5 said:
IS that works seemingly as well as 3 ccd cameras
Click to expand...

Well, this was at 55mm only. You probably want to look at how the IS performs on bigger zooms. I remember the 24-105mm IS being okay on my 5Dii, but if anyone has a video of it on the C300 that'd be great.
 
Thanks a lot for that link cowpunk...looks like that'll be the lens I go with for the C100s!

Kegan
 
Kegan said:
Thanks a lot for that link cowpunk...looks like that'll be the lens I go with for the C100s!

Kegan
Click to expand...

It's a great lens, but I actually prefer the 24-105 f4 L. It's only a stop slower, but much more reach. And the IS really helps at the long end. The 17-55 is tough to focus accurately, has a very jerky zoom, and pumps dust like nobody's business. Just some things to think about!
 
Appreciated. This is a difficult decision actually. The more I think about it, the more unsure I am. I would ideally like the extra stop because of the run n' gun nature of reality (perhaps the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?) I do like the 24-105 f4 L...just not confident that it's the best lens for this application. I'll be able to rent as well, but I'd really like to have a lens that I stick on the camera.

Cool if I shoot you a PM since you seem to have a pretty good grasp on C-series shooting?

Kegan
 
Kegan said:
Appreciated. This is a difficult decision actually. The more I think about it, the more unsure I am. I would ideally like the extra stop because of the run n' gun nature of reality (perhaps the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?) I do like the 24-105 f4 L...just not confident that it's the best lens for this application. I'll be able to rent as well, but I'd really like to have a lens that I stick on the camera.

Cool if I shoot you a PM since you seem to have a pretty good grasp on C-series shooting?

Kegan
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know - it's a tough decision. I love the wide end and constant 2.8 of the 17-55, but the build is not great. There is also the chance of vignetting with the 17-55 & C300, but I don't have enough experience with the lens to make an accurate assessment: http://www.pauljoy.com/2012/04/canon-efs-17-55-causing-vignetting-on-the-c300/

The 24-105 is a stop slower, but it's only 1 stop - and the low-light capabilities of the C300 more than compensates for it. Build quality and operation is also on another league. Both are sharp as hell through the range. I do find I lose maybe 1/4 stop of light on the 24-105 when zoomed fully in, so that's another thing to keep in mind.

My personal opinion is that the 16-35 and 24-105 is the perfect combination for documentary shooting, and it's what I use almost all the time for doc productions. I feel that had I gone with the 17-55, it would not have been able to withstand what I've put those L series lenses through. If you can, try to get down to a camera shop and test them all out on a C300. I find the Tamron's really tough to focus with. They have a very small throw, and if I'm not mistaken, it goes in the opposite direction of Canon glass. They're very difficult to get a handle on, and wide open are quite a bit softer.

Feel free to DM me, or email me, with questions. You can find my email address through my personal website.
 
anatusa said:
the best IS for video you will get with newer IS system developed by canon.....Hybrid Image Stabilization.... like that lens has for example 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM!
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe...cro_pro/ef_100mm_f_2_8l_macro_is_usm#Overview

not sure how many lenses have it, but if IS its what u need - its a must have
Click to expand...

This is true - the IS implementation in that lens is nothing short of spectacular. Being a prime, though, makes it somewhat limiting for doc work. But I hope to see the same technology put in some standard zooms soon. I would snatch those up in a heartbeat!
 
24-105 is the best doc-lens on the C300. The IS is superb and the range is great. It would be nice if it started a tad wider, and be 2.8, but then it probably had 3 times the weight......

I have used the C300 with a 100-400L in a dark concerthall with ISO 6400 handheld and the director was blown away.......so yes, IS is very much useable on the C300.
 
With practice it's possible to handhold a 70-200 IS II at 200mm and get perfectly stable footage. It's makes it a snap to get 3-4 second clips that look like they're shot on a dolly, steadicam or jib, all while moving extremely quickly.
 
Ready to by glass for my C300 and MKIII this week. I currently only have the EF 14mm F/2.8L II which I use for stills on the MKII and also works great on the C300. Not sure if I should go with the 17-55 or 15-85? Keep hearing about the build and dust problems with the 17-55. Is this also a problem with the 15-85?

I will add a 24-105, and 70-200, plus some primes down the road.
 
Paul Cronin said:
Not sure if I should go with the 17-55 or 15-85? Keep hearing about the build and dust problems with the 17-55. Is this also a problem with the 15-85?
Click to expand...

I would say - u can tell the same about any non L zoom lenses. also focus wheel on L and non L lenses - its day and night, something to keep as short focus - its like a night mare!
 
I wish the 16-35 had IS since I need that for my work. Need to decide by tomorrow so I have enough time with it prior to the C300 being tossed into the business replacing the EX3.
 
I agree with everything stated about the 17-55, & would love to see an improved version as the focal range is great.

I'm primarily chiming in about the vignetting. Seems the supplied hood exacerbates the issue, & users should consider the 24-105 hood instead. It will fit, & is quite a bit shorter.
 
17mm vs. 24 (around 35 on the C300) is also sth to consider, the 17-55 has many flaws, but indoors or in confined spaces (cars etc) it is a great performer...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top