C100: wide zoom lens for C100

"contraction?" Not sure I'm familiar with that term. . .do you mean it flares badly or what? Didn't know about the rest. Thanks. Although allegedly no still lens is parfocal, even though some are considered to be.

Even with all those issues, most of you guys would still go Canon 17-55 over Sigma 17-50?
 
Does anybody know of anything shot with the Sigma 17-50mm? You can get it for a great bargain if you look hard enough, but I can't seem to find any footage using it.
 
no youtube tests or vimeo?

some photography site did an extensive comparison between the sigma and canon and found little to no difference, overall.
 
from cpreston over a year ago:

I have come to the same conclusion as Spartacus. Back when I was working with the older DSLR's, I was always using f/2.8 zooms and fast primes near to wide open. Now that I've moved up the C series, I find myself almost always using my f/4 zooms with IS rather than the f/2.8's. I ended up just selling my 17-55. I found it way too hard to follow focus at events at f/2.8, especially with it's short throw, grainy focus ring. Also, I noticed heavy vignetting with IS engaged on the 17-55 on the S35 sensor. Then, there was the fact that the 17-55 wasn't even close to parfocal in comparison to the other zooms you have listed. The 17-55 wasn't bad for interviews, though. Based on this, I would get rid of the 17-55 and maybe get the 18-35 further down the line if you find you are wanting the range and the wider aperture.
 
The Canon 17-55 is more expensive, but it will hold it's value or possibly even increase in value if Canon ever stops making it. The Sigma will quickly lose any resale value. I don't buy third party lenses, other than a Nikon Mount Tokina 12-24 V1 that I bought years and years ago, before all of those wide Nikon zooms came out. The Tokina is mechanically superior, built like a tank, super sharp and contrasty but it is a third party lens, therefore almost worthless on the used market where the Nikon versions pretty much sell for used close to what a new one sells for. I wouldn't consider $469.00 for the Sigma a huge expenditure but this factor is something to consider.
 
control4userguy said:
from cpreston over a year ago:

I have come to the same conclusion as Spartacus. Back when I was working with the older DSLR's, I was always using f/2.8 zooms and fast primes near to wide open. Now that I've moved up the C series, I find myself almost always using my f/4 zooms with IS rather than the f/2.8's. I ended up just selling my 17-55. I found it way too hard to follow focus at events at f/2.8, especially with it's short throw, grainy focus ring. Also, I noticed heavy vignetting with IS engaged on the 17-55 on the S35 sensor. Then, there was the fact that the 17-55 wasn't even close to parfocal in comparison to the other zooms you have listed. The 17-55 wasn't bad for interviews, though. Based on this, I would get rid of the 17-55 and maybe get the 18-35 further down the line if you find you are wanting the range and the wider aperture.
Click to expand...

Hey, look at my old quote. I sold my 17-55 and switched over to the 24-105 f/4L. I have now switched over from the 24-105L to the 18-135 STM for my most used lens. I should mention, however, that I also own the full range of 2.8L zooms that I primarily use for interviews and certain narrative shooting. If I had to keep just one lens, it would be the 18-135 STM.

I think the 17-50 length cropped frame style lens would be useful for close quarters interviews and product shots at events, but I never wish that I had it any longer. I have picked up the 18-35 Sigma f/1.8 as it has saved me at receptions and low lit events in which not even an f/2.8 zoom is going to get me below 6400 iso.

One consideration for sticking with Canon lenses on the C100 is the built in peripheral illumination correction. Those crop frame zooms have a huge amount of light falloff at the corners that is noticeable in video. Also, try to buy used as even the Canon crop frame lenses do not hold their value nearly as well as the full frame lenses.
 
cpreston said:
Hey, look at my old quote. I sold my 17-55 and switched over to the 24-105 f/4L. I have now switched over from the 24-105L to the 18-135 STM for my most used lens. I should mention, however, that I also own the full range of 2.8L zooms that I primarily use for interviews and certain narrative shooting. If I had to keep just one lens, it would be the 18-135 STM. I think the 17-50 length cropped frame style lens would be useful for close quarters interviews and product shots at events, but I never wish that I had it any longer. I have picked up the 18-35 Sigma f/1.8 as it has saved me at receptions and low lit events in which not even an f/2.8 zoom is going to get me below 6400 iso. One consideration for sticking with Canon lenses on the C100 is the built in peripheral illumination correction. Those crop frame zooms have a huge amount of light falloff at the corners that is noticeable in video. Also, try to buy used as even the Canon crop frame lenses do not hold their value nearly as well as the full frame lenses.
Click to expand...
Do you focus manually a lot with the 18-135 stm? Is it a pain to focus manually compared to the 24-105?
 
thanks. really not worried about resale value on third party lenses...thats thinking waaaaaaay too far ahead, especially as everyone says lenses are an investment and you hold onto them as cams come and go. as for 2.8 vs 4 i would just like to be versatile...if i need to stop down to 4 or 5.6 most of the time, so be it. 2.8 would be nice to have when you need it.
 
Doug_EX said:
Do you focus manually a lot with the 18-135 stm? Is it a pain to focus manually compared to the 24-105?
Click to expand...

Yeah, focus is a bit of a pain since the focus by wire is sensitive to speed rather than tied directly to rotation. The 24-105 is quite a bit easier to focus. I prefer the focusing with the 18-135 stm vs the 17-55 f/2.8 since the focus throw on the 17-55 is so short. The one nice thing about the 18-135 is that it is essentially parfocal due to the focus by wire so I have gotten used to doing a quick zoom in to focus and then quickly zooming back out. I find this quicker than relying on magnification and peaking and hunting for maximum sharpness.
 
Josh Bass said:
https://herefortheweather.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/lenses-about-parfocal-lenses/

several references online to the sigma 17-50 being parfocal (even if it really isnt and just happens to mostly hold focus well) including that link
Click to expand...

Well, that link mentions use on the BMCC and states that the Sigma 18-35 is not parfocal. Both copies of the 18-35 that I have used hold focus well enough on a C100. They also don't breathe, don't lose light zooming, don't extend, have any easy to use focus ring, and are sharp wide open. The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is easily the best wide angle zoom lens available for under $800 for video if you only need the limited range and can do without IS.
 
Link could be wrong. . .it is the internet after all. I'm sure the 18-35 is very nice, but the no IS is a dealbreaker on that one for me. I may get the 18-135 STM later, right now I am trying to get a bare bones kit together with decent (but not crazy expensive) lenses. Wide, medium, tight. I would go for the ultra wide like Tokina 11-16 (or 11-20) but I'm just afraid it wouldn't get much use, being so wide and so limited on range. So something that maybe isn't quite as wide but has more range seems preferable for now (hence the 17-x lenses). Again, constant aperture, 2.8, IS, decent wide range is what I'm after.
 
No, sigma and even tamron is just as good if not better for video ( my opinion is very subjective...didn't test them for video side by side...photographs i did test them and some examples of the same lens may perform much better than the other ).
Have used multiple of all of them, for photographs canon is still better and tamron sucks ( af ). For video...they are almost the same for me. tamron can be had for very little money.
If you use the af from canon you might wanna test this beforehand..

There is the 15-85mm is from canon but no 2.8. Most lenses in these price range are not parfocal so zooming is not ....easy. In this case you have decent wide angle when needed and you go to 85mm with reasonable is to help out a bit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I've been advised to go with constant aperture even if it's a slower lens. Now I'm second-guessing myself and wondering if it's better to have the whole focal length range covered vs having one lens (17-55 for example) that covers a "pretty wide" to reasonably medium/tight). I can't gaze into the future and tell when switching between an 11-20 and a 24-105 would completely screw me on a gig vs having a lens that could sort of bridge that range, even if it couldn't reach as far or go out as wide.

As for AF, I rarely use AF with video, but if so many folks consider it an asset, even "professionals" (including local colleagues I know/trust), then maybe there's something to it and I shouldn't write it off. So yes, having compatibility with AF would be a good thing. I'm even loosely (very loosely) considering the Canon 16-35 f4 since that one has IS and is cheaper than the 2.8.

I dunno. This is all so irritating.
 
just make sure that you understand that any of the Canon constant aperture lenses you are talking about are only really "constant aperture" when wide open. If you stop down, you are better just having a changing aperture lens since you at least have control of the light transmission when zooming.
 
Oh really? That's pretty lame. So a 2.8 lens is not constant at 4, 5.6, etc.? I thought that was just the 24-105 and a few others did that. You're saying ALL constant aperture lenses do that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top