C100: wide zoom lens for C100

J

Josh Bass

Veteran
Hi guys. Sorry to be the 8,000th person to post about this. I'm looking into a C100 and will have to get lenses too. I've been researching and agonizing over what wide ZOOM (sorry no primes right now) lens to get. SEems like on the whole internet, where video is concerned, there are only a handful of threads about these, and I've read and reread them. I've narrowed it down to several choices, all within the same general price range (especially used). Here they are, with the cons I know about them. Hoping some users/owners can fill in missing info. I'm thinking IS and constant aperture are necessities looking at f2.8s right now but would consider an f4, AF working well (I understand some or all third party lenses don't play real well with C100 AF, whether the push or dual pixel) would be NICE, might let that one go. All that said, here we go:

Tokina 11-16 - I know it's universally loved, but looknig for something I'd use a lot, this one by most accounts is too wide for general purpose use

Sigma 17-50 - read that push AF doesn't work

Tamron 17-50 - IS/VC version supposedly not as sharp, believe I also read that the VC/IS doesn't work that well for video. . .too aggressive/locks on too hard

Tokina 16-50 - reportedly has chromatic aberration, am aware of the 2" tube extension when zoomed in but don't really care.


If there's something commonly suggested I didn't mention (Canon 17-55 for example) there's probably a reason (price, usually) . Those are the negatives I know/have heard about those lenses. Any thoughts/comments from people who've owned/used them? Thanks.
 
Yes, thanks. I looked into that one but from what I understand, has no IS so is a no-go for me. Also 18 is getting a little narrow for a wide for my tastes.
 
Doug_EX said:
Otherwise, go with the Sigma 17-50.
Click to expand...

+1 on the Sigma 17-50. It's underrated, especially for the price. Pulling focus on it can be a bit of a pain b/c of it's short throw, but otherwise a great lens. I use it most frequently for indoor work.
 
The Tamron and Tokina 16-50, I believe, have manual focus in the opposite direction of standard Canon lenses. In that range, I would suggest paying just a tad bit more and getting the Canon 17-55. It has it's quirks, but it is the only lens of the bunch that doesn't have a nearly disabling short focus throw if you ever need to follow focus. The focus throw is still too short and focus ring is grabby on the Canon, though.
 
Tokina has a new version of the famous 11-16mm that goes all the way to 20mm. Haven't use dit yet, but I love the image out of my 11-16mm, so if this one is just as good, I'll definitely upgrade eventually.

Also, at very wide focal lengths, image stabilization becomes much less important. What looks pretty shaky at 200mm will look pretty steady at 11mm.
 
^ ^Interesting. Out of 3 of these, I never one that was sharp to liking. Also, you mentioned IS as "much less important" on a UWA (?) I guess all I can add here is since the market for a f2.8, IS UWA zoom is not well populated, OP may want to beg or borrow a Tamron SP 15-30 f2.8 VC. I did and turned in some excellent pay for that work. Nice lens for the three days I had it.
 
i forgot about the tokina 11-20. good one.

will look at the canon 17-55 but remember it being more than i wanted to pay. IS may not mean much at 11 mm, but if we're talking about a zoom that goes to 50+ mm then its a different story.

im seeing about a $300 price difference between the sigma and canon mentioned here, looking at KEH.com

i really dont use follow focuses or have gigs of that nature so not too worried about short throw.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Like to stick with 2.8s where feasible, and also it looks like all the 16-35s (including the f4) are way more than I want to spend right now.
 
As nice as having a 2.8 is, there's less need for it on the wide end since you're not going to get that shallow DOF on such wide lenses anyway. Thankfully the C100 is decent in low light so we can always bump up the ISO instead of having to shoot wide open.
 
Yes, that is what many folks, say, however many of my local colleagues are against upping the ISO unless it's damn near an emergency, preferring to stick to 850. Are they older and maybe too old school in their thinking?. . .maybe. On the other hand maybe their clients have ultra high demands as to the acceptable levels of noise in footage, and they prefer to play it safe rather than trust that the camera remains noise free up to 3200 or whatever the lore is. Also, sure, super wide, we won't get shallow DOF, but when you're talking lenses that go up to 50 or 55 mm, now we're not so wide anymore. I'm really looking to stick to constant aperture and 2.8s unless something mindblowing comes along that doesn't have one of those. . .the 16-35 f4 is still close to $1000 from what I saw. I'm looking at stuff that's closer to half that or less.
 
Josh Bass said:
Yes, that is what many folks, say, however many of my local colleagues are against upping the ISO unless it's damn near an emergency, preferring to stick to 850. Are they older and maybe too old school in their thinking?. . .maybe. On the other hand maybe their clients have ultra high demands as to the acceptable levels of noise in footage, and they prefer to play it safe rather than trust that the camera remains noise free up to 3200 or whatever the lore is. Also, sure, super wide, we won't get shallow DOF, but when you're talking lenses that go up to 50 or 55 mm, now we're not so wide anymore. I'm really looking to stick to constant aperture and 2.8s unless something mindblowing comes along that doesn't have one of those. . .the 16-35 f4 is still close to $1000 from what I saw. I'm looking at stuff that's closer to half that or less.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with you. Go with the 17-55 if you have the money, otherwise Sigma 17-50.
 
I guess since this range is a lot of folks' favorite "all purpose"/"walking around" range it would make sense to spend a little more on it since I may decide it stays on the cam a lot.
 
17-55 goes a little darker on zoom .... also contraction is just terrible, dont even think using it with out filter. but in general lens is sharp,-

i wonder how 17-55 works with AF on C300 II
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top