C300: What's up with the fire-sale on Canon 17-120mm Cine-Servos
- Thread starter jb.
- Start date
DustinSchmidt
Well-known member
If I had to guess it has more to do with the move to full frame sensors in the last several years and the reduced interest in lenses that only have Super35 coverage.
Run&Gun
Veteran
It's still a workhorse in the industry, especially in the doc and sports doc world. But there are a lot of other lenses in that class, now, including the top-notch Canon 25-250 that has a built-in 1.5x extender/expander that allows it to cover "FF" and the newer Canon 15-120 w/1.5x extender/expander. Plus the new Fuji 24-300(w/1.5x) and 14-100(w/1.5x). Unless I'm going to have to do a lot of up-close follow type stuff, the 25-250 became my go-to for sports doc work as soon as I got it.
If you can find one in good shape for sub-$10K and you've been wanting/needing one, that's a pretty good deal. It was well over $30K when it was first released. I picked mine up in maybe '16(?) after it got into the mid-$20's and it was worth every penny. I'd love to get the 15-120, but as the 17-120's are so cheap on the used market, it'd be stupid to sell it, as it's usefulness is worth way more than it's financial value. Once they dropped into the teens several years ago, I knew I'd probably never sell it.
If you can find one in good shape for sub-$10K and you've been wanting/needing one, that's a pretty good deal. It was well over $30K when it was first released. I picked mine up in maybe '16(?) after it got into the mid-$20's and it was worth every penny. I'd love to get the 15-120, but as the 17-120's are so cheap on the used market, it'd be stupid to sell it, as it's usefulness is worth way more than it's financial value. Once they dropped into the teens several years ago, I knew I'd probably never sell it.
Yeah. I found one for sub-$7k and I think I'm gonna pull the trigger. I do mostly general doc work and the 17-120 would cover well over 80% of my shooting on the C300 Mark III... and I have about zero interest in moving away from the C300 Mark III at this point.
The one I'm looking at also has the AbelCine eUMS system installed on it and comes with the PL and EF mounts... so there's some future-proofing on PL.
The one I'm looking at also has the AbelCine eUMS system installed on it and comes with the PL and EF mounts... so there's some future-proofing on PL.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I had a quick look around on eBay after my post and it was kind of crazy how inexpensive they can be found for.
I have the eUMS system on my 17-120 and it was awesome, as I still shot a fair amount on EF mount cameras the first couple of years that I had it.
If I recall, the eUMS system was around $2800 by itself when released.
I have the eUMS system on my 17-120 and it was awesome, as I still shot a fair amount on EF mount cameras the first couple of years that I had it.
If I recall, the eUMS system was around $2800 by itself when released.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I've my two Fujinon Cabrios up for sale for well over a year with no real offers on them. At this point looks like they may just stay with me. They are still better lenses than the newer offerings with wider range, the Fuji rep said that those are really broadcast lenses and mine are designed more for cinema, where I have long used them, and better quality optically. Of course the way the industry is, that won't really matter.
So, I snagged one for a price that’s low even by the current market. I got it today and played with it a bit. It’s always been my “dream” lens and it doesn’t disappoint does it?
Having used mostly stills glass and an 18-80 Cine Servo this thing is in a class by itself. One thing tho… why in the name of all that’s holy did canon make the cable on the servo unit less than two inches too short to reach the placement of the “Lens” port on an EU-V2 on the C300M3/C500M2? Now I need to dig up a 2” Hirose 12 M-F extension cable. It’s probably more about where they placed the port on the extension unit, but how annoying.
I also need to get a better lens support. The one I have isn’t terribly easy to fit. I ordered a Bright Tangerine Morrissey so I’ll see if that’s better.
Having used mostly stills glass and an 18-80 Cine Servo this thing is in a class by itself. One thing tho… why in the name of all that’s holy did canon make the cable on the servo unit less than two inches too short to reach the placement of the “Lens” port on an EU-V2 on the C300M3/C500M2? Now I need to dig up a 2” Hirose 12 M-F extension cable. It’s probably more about where they placed the port on the extension unit, but how annoying.
I also need to get a better lens support. The one I have isn’t terribly easy to fit. I ordered a Bright Tangerine Morrissey so I’ll see if that’s better.
Run&Gun
Veteran
To be fair, when the lens was designed and originally released, the 300/3 and EU-V2 may not have even been anywhere close to even being on the drawing board. Canon's main cine camera at that point (2014) was still the OG C300. The hirose cable on the grip is the ~same length as they are on standard B4 ENG lenses. It plugs into the hirose on the Amira or adapter cable for other cameras(like I had to use for my C300 or F55) or into itself and the camera and lens do power & comms through the lens mount(PL), EF can't provide enough power(I also don't think the native EF mount version has the side port to plug the cable back into the lens, which is another reason to buy the native PL version and then put the eUMS system on).
My favorite lens support is the Vocas 15mm General Lens Support. Super low profile and solid. The only problem, pretty much no one in the US stocks them anymore and they have to be special ordered. I had Abel order me a few last year and it took several weeks.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
What killed the 17-120 for me as a narrative lens was the iris ramp that occurs around 90mm or so. It aways seemed to easy to end up zooming into that zone without realizing it with the exposure changing, which in a controlled situation is a huge issue. Too easy for an operator to punch in past the ramp point and I'm left scratching my head why one of the cameras isn't quite matching the others any more.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Iris ramp always seems to be the biggest knock that I see people give the 17-120 and why they preferred the 19-90 and I always used to just laugh, because the 17-120 is constant from 17-91mm, which is actually a larger range than the 19-90. You get a much more workable back-end. And we all know that while it sounds almost inconsequential, as you get wider, each mm makes a bigger difference, so going from say 250mm to 248mm is unnoticeable, going from 19mm to 17mm makes an actual real-world difference. Especially in a tight/small environment where you can’t just “take another step back”. Plus, the market where this lens was really aimed, sports and doc style work that was typically shot on ENG cameras with ENG lenses, they all ramp. The range and versatility is way more important than a constant aperture. But again, I’m not shooting narrative style work.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I think there are many reasons why this lens did not fly. (while being a technical master work)
Basically the technical challenge to build a s35 run and gun lense was so complex that it ended up too big for run and gun!
It ended up being only the correct option for some sports sideline live broadcast work that is still best done with a 2/3 camera!
In the low market one it is/was literally cheaper to have a trainee followintg you to do the wides than have this that could crash out to 17 (which .. ideally Id want a 15)
Have the trainee take your tele camera and hand you the wide camera pay them the rental rate of a 17-120.. and they carry your tripod too.
Today with AF (and digital parfocality) and an audience that doesnt care for a creep zoom the better option is a 24-240 and they are $249 not $24000
--
Away from my miserable jokes I know two high profile' news operators (bbc national) and they both use 24-240 sony on a mirrorless with a 2/3camera rotting in the van as backup!
Basically the technical challenge to build a s35 run and gun lense was so complex that it ended up too big for run and gun!
It ended up being only the correct option for some sports sideline live broadcast work that is still best done with a 2/3 camera!
In the low market one it is/was literally cheaper to have a trainee followintg you to do the wides than have this that could crash out to 17 (which .. ideally Id want a 15)
Have the trainee take your tele camera and hand you the wide camera pay them the rental rate of a 17-120.. and they carry your tripod too.
Today with AF (and digital parfocality) and an audience that doesnt care for a creep zoom the better option is a 24-240 and they are $249 not $24000
--
Away from my miserable jokes I know two high profile' news operators (bbc national) and they both use 24-240 sony on a mirrorless with a 2/3camera rotting in the van as backup!
Run&Gun
Veteran
At least in the US the 17-120 was/is hugely popular. Literally an industry workhorse. They’re still built and available to buy brand new today, almost 11 years after being introduced. Although I would go to eBay, first, considering the used prices.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Yes no doubt that they are an industry workhorse.. and a great one too. I guess my question is if that industry actually exists any more.. or certainly if there is an over supply of lenses vs the size of that industry in 2025.
In 'the old days' I would covet tools. slowy creeping up the better kit ladder.This lens being a great example. my finger was on buy it now many times.. I want it and also the caqnon S16 16-64.. and the red 18-80 and the vintage cook 18-100 they just float my boat and make my nerd juices flow. But with the cold producer hat on all of these lenses are just pigs!
My next job is covering some coproprate speeches and b roll thing and a 24-70 (full frame or 18-35 s35) and 70-200 will be cheaper smaller lighter and actually have more speed and reach. (200 at 2.8 for the podium) I dont need the lovely zoom so a two $1000 lenses will deliver better footage and there will be time to 'swing' them.
Its hard to 'swing' that lens
With an Osmo (gopro thing) taped to the top of watever camera I choose I never miss a wide even with the telephoto on.
Most dont need this lens however wonderful it is and that pushes the price down?
Run&Gun
Veteran
I think the market segment where it was originally aimed is definitely shrinking. But I could see a rebound of sorts, as those that are bailing out sell off their gear at fire-sale prices, those that have some spare cash can scoop up these higher-end pieces for not much more than entry level gear a few years ago. And then they could bridge the gap between the low and mid-high, because they don't have to recoup the initial high gear costs, they can charge less, but still charge more than they did. They can offer up the higher-end gear and ability to "jump tiers" to their clients for only a modest increase. Yeah, some clients may not care, but there may be plenty that would jump at the chance to move from say a Sony FX3 or FX6 and still lenses to a mini or Amira and cine lenses, if the price was right. Hell, today I can pick up a used Amira and used 17-120 both together for about what I paid for my last Betacam alone in 2003.
Or people that are already in the mid-to-mid-high are able to add more gear. For example, I still do a ton of network/broadcast work. Me and a couple of friends have been having a field day on eBay over the last year scooping up broadcast gear for literally pennies on the dollar. Last month one of my buddies picked up a Vinten 100 head and CF legs for less than $800. The head alone is over $7K new, today. And last year I grabbed about $60K worth of broadcast ENG and cine glass for ~$12K.
But swinging back in-line with what you were saying, it's amazing what we can get for the money today. Almost any camera manufactured in the last decade+ is more than capable of making a good looking image. And inexpensive lenses, too. But the image alone is not always the only deciding factor in choosing either.
Or people that are already in the mid-to-mid-high are able to add more gear. For example, I still do a ton of network/broadcast work. Me and a couple of friends have been having a field day on eBay over the last year scooping up broadcast gear for literally pennies on the dollar. Last month one of my buddies picked up a Vinten 100 head and CF legs for less than $800. The head alone is over $7K new, today. And last year I grabbed about $60K worth of broadcast ENG and cine glass for ~$12K.
But swinging back in-line with what you were saying, it's amazing what we can get for the money today. Almost any camera manufactured in the last decade+ is more than capable of making a good looking image. And inexpensive lenses, too. But the image alone is not always the only deciding factor in choosing either.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Yes indeed - all true - but sometimes 'entry level' gear ($2000 l zooms or even kit zooms for $1000) is better for this job - not better built or anything just more appropriate to this job Mainly due to low mass, short size AF and sensor coverage.
Ive shot on the lens and sometimes it is the only tool and brilliant too.. but other jobs like my forthcoming conference the 70-200 and would be would be what I would choose given any budget! (OK there is an argument for the 50-1000)
So I would suggest to the OP that the glass is fantastic and there is nothing wrong with it technically.
If you really can drive your business with an iris ramp parfocal manual zoom in this range that weighs 3kg and is 300mm long.. then now is an amazing time to buy!
Ive shot on the lens and sometimes it is the only tool and brilliant too.. but other jobs like my forthcoming conference the 70-200 and would be would be what I would choose given any budget! (OK there is an argument for the 50-1000)
So I would suggest to the OP that the glass is fantastic and there is nothing wrong with it technically.
If you really can drive your business with an iris ramp parfocal manual zoom in this range that weighs 3kg and is 300mm long.. then now is an amazing time to buy!
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
The extra mm at the wide end was indeed great and yes of course, makes much more of a difference there than telephoto. In fact if Canon had found a way to put a mechanical limiter on the telephoto end that would prevent it from zooming into the ramping section unless on demand (similar to the pull-to-release macro lever), I would potentially have used this lens much more. We actually had one on B camera for my recent short (the 1940's one I talked about in the production diary section) because of availability, and there were no issues in matching against the 19-90 I had on A camera. Helped that I was shooting in B&W, and knocking the image back considerably! But I did have to warn my operator against going too tight and possibly "crossing over".
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
This popped up today.
The operator is not sure for the 28-135 or cn7 - even though both are on his bench.
The operator is not sure for the 28-135 or cn7 - even though both are on his bench.
So, I've spent some time with the 17-120 now... mine was originally an EF mount (I have the parts to return it to stock if desired) and was converted by Abel to eUMS. Mine DOES have the little box on the bottom to plug the lens cable into when using PL.
One benefit to an E1 (original EF lens) KAS 7x17 is they're capable of autofocus with DPAF bodies... even with the eUMS conversion. It's not the fastest AF on the planet, but it's usable. The P1 (native PL) apparently can't AF at all.
I totally get why the cable is too short... the C300/3 and EU post-date it by quite a lot... it's just kind of annoying. It would have been nicer of Canon to put a LENS port on the C300 body itself since the Cine-Servos existed before it. Then it could be where God intended near the lens mount (like the C700)
Chirozel makes a tiny little hirose 12p to 12p right angle cable that would be the perfect solution if it wasn't $350. I have a buddy who makes cables professionally looking into making me an identical one for like $40 in parts and a six pack of beer. What would be even more ideal would be a hirose 12p right angle adapter but that doesn't seem to exist.
Mine'll be used about 70-80% on a set of sticks. I shoot most of my handheld stuff on a gimbal or with a handheld C70. For what I do (documentary and some corporate) the 17-120 will significantly reduce the amount of times I need to swap lenses which is worth it by itself. It also just feels right shooting on an ENG style zoom again with big-sensor cine-camera "look"... and it looks cool and wows the clients.
Having shot with the Sony 28-135 and it's APS-C newer cousin the 18-110, you'll need the AF because the fly-by-wire manual focus on those lenses kinda sucks IMO. I never got along with either when I forayed into Sony gear.
eUMS means I can use this thing on nearly anything in the future too (as long as it's S35, which I still strongly prefer).
Now I just have to find a bag for this beast of a rig. By the time you add the EU-V2 and a V-mount the whole thing's about 23" long and the EVF-V70 on the AXL mount makes it about 13" wide. If I pull off the lens hood and the battery it barely fits in my Tenba Cineluxe Roller 24.
One benefit to an E1 (original EF lens) KAS 7x17 is they're capable of autofocus with DPAF bodies... even with the eUMS conversion. It's not the fastest AF on the planet, but it's usable. The P1 (native PL) apparently can't AF at all.
I totally get why the cable is too short... the C300/3 and EU post-date it by quite a lot... it's just kind of annoying. It would have been nicer of Canon to put a LENS port on the C300 body itself since the Cine-Servos existed before it. Then it could be where God intended near the lens mount (like the C700)
Chirozel makes a tiny little hirose 12p to 12p right angle cable that would be the perfect solution if it wasn't $350. I have a buddy who makes cables professionally looking into making me an identical one for like $40 in parts and a six pack of beer. What would be even more ideal would be a hirose 12p right angle adapter but that doesn't seem to exist.
Mine'll be used about 70-80% on a set of sticks. I shoot most of my handheld stuff on a gimbal or with a handheld C70. For what I do (documentary and some corporate) the 17-120 will significantly reduce the amount of times I need to swap lenses which is worth it by itself. It also just feels right shooting on an ENG style zoom again with big-sensor cine-camera "look"... and it looks cool and wows the clients.
Having shot with the Sony 28-135 and it's APS-C newer cousin the 18-110, you'll need the AF because the fly-by-wire manual focus on those lenses kinda sucks IMO. I never got along with either when I forayed into Sony gear.
eUMS means I can use this thing on nearly anything in the future too (as long as it's S35, which I still strongly prefer).
Now I just have to find a bag for this beast of a rig. By the time you add the EU-V2 and a V-mount the whole thing's about 23" long and the EVF-V70 on the AXL mount makes it about 13" wide. If I pull off the lens hood and the battery it barely fits in my Tenba Cineluxe Roller 24.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Mine is native PL and I had the AbelCine eUMS mount conversion done after it became available and I can confirm that when the eUMS EF mount is on it, it does autofocus on Canon C series cameras that have that ability. I have a client that used to shoot a lot of Canon 300 series and my lens worked on their 300/II. Not the best AF in the world, but still kind of wild to watch a barrel that big spinning around "by itself" with no external motors attached.
Sweet. That's definitely not what I was told, but it's cool it works.
Sounds like once you install the eUMS the two different versions are identical.