C100: Which Canon should i get for C100

D

dtechlogic

Member
Hi Guys,

i Have been eyeing the EFS 17-55 F2.8 and EF 70-200 F4L and also the 24-70 F4 L. So far i am planning to buy the EFS 17-55 or the 24-70 F4L. Any advice on this one. The 70-200 i will be getting that one later on.
 
Agreed. The 17-55mm 1.8 is my most used lens on the C100. It's a great walking around, run and gun lens. And with the image stabilization activated, you can easily get very usable handheld shots at any focal length.
 
If you are considering the 24-70 F4 then you should consider the 24-105 F4, it's my most used lens. Some light loss on the long end but with the C100 it doesn't really matter because you can crank up the ISO if needed. The 17-55mm is a great lens I just don't care for the small focusing ring and the zoom and focus rings are switched unlike L glass. If I had to start out with only one lens then I'd get the 24-105.
 
17-55 is non-cinematic lens. Why? Because aperture isnt still. Example, when you shooting on F3.5, F4, F5.6 etc, when you zooming in from wide angle to telephoto apareture close a little, exposure change (camera still yelling its the same F-stop). So constant aperture is only on paper. Of course, in F2.8 exposure is the same from 17mm to 55mm. But when u close a little, zooming can make a little problem with exposure.
 
michasacuer said:
17-55 is non-cinematic lens. Why? Because aperture isnt still. Example, when you shooting on F3.5, F4, F5.6 etc, when you zooming in from wide angle to telephoto apareture close a little, exposure change (camera still yelling its the same F-stop). So constant aperture is only on paper. Of course, in F2.8 exposure is the same from 17mm to 55mm. But when u close a little, zooming can make a little problem with exposure.
Click to expand...

All foto zoom lenses behave that way even L lenses.
zoom lenses with constant f-stop of 2,8 or 4 are only constant wide open tru the entire zoom range, when stopping down the aperture is no longer constant tru the zoom range .
 
michasacuer said:
17-55 is non-cinematic lens. Why? Because aperture isnt still. Example, when you shooting on F3.5, F4, F5.6 etc, when you zooming in from wide angle to telephoto apareture close a little, exposure change (camera still yelling its the same F-stop). So constant aperture is only on paper. Of course, in F2.8 exposure is the same from 17mm to 55mm. But when u close a little, zooming can make a little problem with exposure.
Click to expand...


I find the 17-55 2.8 MUCH more cinematic than the 24-105 f4, whatever that means. It's a full stop faster, meaning that much more possible depth of field. I find the 24-105 a wholly unremarkable lens. Drab and boring compared to almost any popular EF glass.
 
I have been eyeing it for a while. So far I have 24-105 L F4. Now the lens on my wish list is the 17-55 and the 70-200. For the 70-200 I am planning to get that first. So far I have couple of Lens but I use them with my canon 60 d for pics. I have the tamron 24-78 f2.8., 50mm 1.8 STM, 18-135 STM, 10-18 stm. The lens that I use more often is 18-135. Until last week I started using my 24-105 more than my 18-135. If we're to sell some of my lens. What should I sell. Since I don't have a lot and keep those that I will use often.
 
True, but it is a very useful lens if you need to go from 24-105 quickly without a lens change. Docs, weddings,etc.
 
My main lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but man I really wish it had stabilization at times. I borrow my friend's 24-105mm when I do events. I've yet to try the 17-55mm but would like to as an IS zoom would be helpful. I may just cheap out and get the 18-135mm STM.
 
Hi guys.
I was able to get a copy of the 70-200 F4 IS version. I am happy withit. I was testing it yesterday for pic and video. Happy new owner of this lens. Now I just need to save up for the 17-55 f2.8. Also I was testing out the tokina 11-16. I was happy with image quality it put out. But I have my mind set on the 17-55 or possible 24-70 but I do really want to get a glass with IS. Since I have been reading up on the 17-55 and they have been positive on this lens. only if I have the money then I will buy the 24-70 f2.8 . Well let me know what you guys think. I will post the lens I have later on. I do have to Efs lens and the rest are EF lens
 
Unless you're really stuck on Canon glass, maybe consider the Tamron 24-70 2.8 as a good go-to walking around lens. Better focal length than the Canon 17-55, good image stabilization, and sharp as a tack. You can probably find one new on eBay for less than 800 dollars. It stays on my camera 80% of the time.

I round out my collection with a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for occasional wide angle use, a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for very occasional telephoto use, a Canon 50mm f1.8 STM for extreme low-light situations, and the Canon 24-105 f4 for general daytime outdoor use. Canon 24-105's are real hit and miss and vary from copy to copy. Mine's pretty okay.

I've kicked around the idea of getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8, but I've never had an extreme need.
 
You can't say "better focal range". Yeah, maybe better for you but not in general. For
me 24mm was not wide enough so I went with 17-55.
 
To me, a general purpose lens for S35 needs to begin wider than 24mm. Either the 18-135 STM IS or the 17-55 2.8 IS is a much more usful choice than either of the lenses that start at 24mm. 18-135 STM IS if you need length but not as much speed or the 17-55 if you need speed.
 
puredrifting said:
To me, a general purpose lens for S35 needs to begin wider than 24mm. Either the 18-135 STM IS or the 17-55 2.8 IS is a much more usful choice than either of the lenses that start at 24mm. 18-135 STM IS if you need length but not as much speed or the 17-55 if you need speed.
Click to expand...

I think it's debatable, but I see your point. Through my own personal use, I've usually found myself needing a little more reach than needing to go wider on shots. I used to own a Sigma 17-50. There were times that having the wider focal range helped, but there were even more times when I needed to pull off the lenses and slap on a telephoto for doing closeups across tabletops and whatnot. Of course no lens is going to meet every need, but 24-70 is a good compromise for everyday use. Everyone should really have a good wide angle and a good telephoto lens in their bag to make up the difference.
 
jthabel said:
I think it's debatable, but I see your point. Through my own personal use, I've usually found myself needing a little more reach than needing to go wider on shots. I used to own a Sigma 17-50. There were times that having the wider focal range helped, but there were even more times when I needed to pull off the lenses and slap on a telephoto for doing closeups across tabletops and whatnot. Of course no lens is going to meet every need, but 24-70 is a good compromise for everyday use. Everyone should really have a good wide angle and a good telephoto lens in their bag to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

A lot of it is dependent on what sorts of situations you find yourself in and your style too. I seem to end up shooting in cars, small rooms, walk and talks where a 24mm does nothing but frustrate me that I don't have a wide enough FOV. If you are shooting more in documentary situations where you need to be a fly on the wall and not be in talent or a subjects face, I agree that something like the 70-200 2.8 is so much better. I shoot BTS on a lot of TV and film sets and the 70-200 2.8 IS is great for that, I am supposed to be a fly on the wall for that stuff, the 18-135 STM IS is too slow and not long enough. But generally, I like the 18-135 STM IS as a general all arounder, it's wide enough to follow talent into a car or elevator and get a usable shot, but long enough to b observational from a distance. Just wish it was a constant 2.8 or even 3.5 and wasn't focus by wire, I would easily pay $2k for a 18-135 STM IS 2.8 that was built to L quality.
 
puredrifting said:
I would easily pay $2k for a 18-135 STM IS 2.8 that was built to L quality.
Click to expand...

I agree with that statement 100%. Also agree that the 18-135 is a little too slow, but it's a good candidate for all-around use, especially in run-n-gun documentary situations.

I've been slowly building up my glass collection over the years so that everything is a constant 2.8 or faster because the majority of my work is indoors and it just makes my job that much easier. My Canon 24-105 f/4 is the only "slower" lens I have in my bag. Really wish it were a 2.8, but I still use it for outdoor daytime shoots and it does great.
 
Hi Guys,

I Just order a copy of my EF-S 17-55 from Canon since it is going for 779.00 It is on the list for 50.00 American Express card that canon gives. Now i am a happy owner of a new lens. What do you guys think. Should i get rid of the Wide angle EFs lens i have listed below or keep it. Since it is sharp during the day. Just during the night were it is not usable. Let me know what are your recommendations. Also for my trip to Guatemala. Which are the lens should i take with me. Also i am only going to take a monopod instead of a tripod. Also do i need to buy a filter. If i should any recommendations for filter. So far there is a filter on my 70-200. A hoya filter.

So far here is the list of lens i have
EF Canon 50mm F1.8 STM
EFS Canon 10-18mm F 4.5-5.6
EF Tamron 28-75mm F 2.8
EFS Canon 18-135 F3.5-5.6 STM
EF Canon 24-105 F 4L
EF Canon 70-200 F 4 IS L
EFS Canon 17-55 F 2.8 (on its way from canon)
 
Wedding shooter here, and 24-105 is my go to (and it stays on) because of the run & gun style of shooting. If on a tri/monopod for the ceremony, then I may throw on the 70-200 2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top