Hi all.

Wanted to check with you all before I purchase the C100 with a lens.

My work: news and docs. Mostly outdoor but some indoor.

Two lens possibilities are the 15-55 f2.8 and the 24-105 f4.0. Build quality on the 24-105 sounds far superior, and also has far more reach. But a bit is lost on the wide end, and lose a stop of light for indoor/shallow DOF.

Both lenses sound like they're sharp and have great contrast, etc.

Any advice appreciated.

I'm in a little village in Guatemala, so can't head over to the local camera store to try out ...

Thanks!

Hi Dave,

Another lens you could consider is the Canon EF-S18-135mmF/3.5-5.6 STM IS. I remember reading that this was one of the lenses that, following a C100 firmware update, would allow for continuous auto focus, if that's something that people might find useful?

I bought this lens for my C300 because its focal range is really useful and it is a very sharp lens and good value for money.

Sure it's not as well built as a L series lens but is certainly worth considering for video work.

Here's a review of the lens.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS - Review / Test Report (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/776-canon_18135_3556stmis)

Thanks very much Mark.

Do you miss the fixed aperture? What's the "feel" of the lens like (focus and zoom rings)? Does it feel like it'll hold together for awhile?

Although I have the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS for a while now, I've since moved to the 24-105 for its extra reach at the long end. It's 'the' interview lens for me, having worked with an older FD version (35-105 3.5) on the FS100. I'd have found it useful as a 'candid/observational' lens for handheld work but I need the IS of the new version.

The 17-55 is great, especially doing 'walkabout' GVs. I'm certainly not selling it on. However, I've always found I wanted a little more, and it's always been just at the missing point between 50 and 75. Hence I'll be 'walking around' with the 11-16 and the 24-105, and will have the 17-55 for interior/low light situations.

Dave,

The 24-105 EF or 17-55 EF-S choice is a dilema many who own a crop Canon go through, and now those of us who own Cinema EOS. I know I spent several weeks on deciding this a couple of years ago with my 7D.

Both have IS which is critically important for the type of minimal kit, run and gun handheld type of shooting I tend to do at times.

The build quality on the 17-55 is so-so and a number of people have had issues with dust being sucked in through its non-weather sealed front. It also has VERY short travel on the focus ring. That being said I love mine and have never had dust issues despite extensive use in industrial environments. At times though I really wish it had longer reach so that I could quickly get intimate close ups of subjects faces without being 'in their face', if you know what I mean.

The other side of the coin is that I rarely feel the immediate need to swap it out with my ultra wide angle because it goes plenty wide enough for most establishing/scene setting shots even indoors.

The 24-105 brings that longer reach at the expense of the wide end, brings L build quality but you are limited to F4 - which on a low light king like a Cinema EOS is of no conseqeunce most of the time in the typical usage you have in mind.

But you know all this so it really comes down to your own personal style of shooting.

I stress I don't have a 24-105 in my kit bag - but next time I feel rich I will get one as BOTH lenses are extremely useful - as Matt has just indicated as I was typing this on my Tab.

One other thing is that Canon are bringing out a 24-70 F4 IS EF lens soon - but personally I don't see why anyone would want that over the current 24-105 F4 IS EF unless its got much better image rendition. Further out there is a very strong rumour that we will eventually see the much desired 24-70 F2.8 IS EF lens sometime in 2014 to complement the non-IS version II recently launched - but that is still at the rumor stage, not fact, so let's just leave it at that....it would not be cheap though!

I don't think you could go wrong with either the 17-55 or 24-105. Good luck choosing!

Andy - yes it's a difficult decision to make. That said, good to hear you've had good experiences with the 17-55 (which is the way I'm leaning at the moment).

That said, I read a review of the Canon EF-S18-135mmF/3.5-5.6 STM IS mentioned by Mark above and it sounds like a pretty solid lens as well (aside from consumer build quality, and lack of fixed aperture). I have to say, the possibility of using in continuous AF could be great for certain situations (where I presently set my aperture to f8 or smaller in order to try to maintain focus). Don't know how I feel about putting a $500 lens on a $6500 camera thought (my $600 Panasonic GH2 currently houses a $1000 lens).

That said, seeing as both 17-55 and 24-105 are more than 5 years old, I wonder if the new lens might have some other advantages?

For sure the 17-55 EF-S IS is much younger than 5 years old as it came out with the Canon 7D, so about 3 years at most. I bought both at launch.

It really is L glass image quality, razor sharp, but in a plasticky body. IS is superb and very quiet too, at least on my copy.

Yes, the new 24-70 F4 EF IS is likely to have some image improvements over the older 24-105, better glass/contrast, maybe more blades on the iris etc...but I don't think it has been reviewed yet (as it came out with the very recent 6D, I believe).

Don't know any more than you about that new STM lens but seasoned pros have been using the $1000 17-55 on their C300s for a while now - so I guess you should feel OK with whatever you end up going with!

Two lens possibilities are the 15-55 f2.8 and the 24-105 f4.0. Build quality on the 24-105 sounds far superior, and also has far more reach. But a bit is lost on the wide end, and lose a stop of light for indoor/shallow DOF.

You can't go wrong with either lens. Both are sharp, but I find the build quality on the 24-105 much better. Also the 17-55 has the annoying part of having the focus ring at the back of the lens behind the zoom ring. This is different than most Canon lenses. I also find the IS on the 24-105 to be a bit better. I think that you can also find the 24-105 for a better price than the 17-55.

Again, both lenses are great to shoot with. I just prefer the longer reach of the 24-105.

Daniel Weber

Are you looking for one 'do it all' lens or a couple to give you a wide zoom range?
I personally feel that the old Sigma 50-150 2.8 is one of the most cinema like still
lenses that you can use. Of course it doesn't help much at the wide end. I also
have a 17-50 2.8 and a 28-105 2.8. Reviews of all of them for video
shooting will be up on my blog soon. Actually the review of the Sigma 50-150
is already up. www.gforcevideo.com (http://Www.gforcevideo.com) then click on the 'blog' button to
have a look. I shoot with a FS100 but these are all canon mount lenses used
with the Metabones adapter so it all should translate nicely to the C100.

I recommend the 24-105L because its a very wide range and also the build quality is top notch. I've always used L lenses and recently picked up a mint condition 24-105L off of ebay for $700 so you might want check ebay or even a lens rental store. If you are truly undecided you can always rent and see which one best suits you.

One more voice for "it depends". If you are like me, shooting people in rooms, wanting a wide shot, the 17-55mm is the ticket.

I always relate it back to 35mm-equivalent lenses. On a 1.6x crop, the 17 works out to 27mm, a true wide-angle, but not into weird distortion in the least. 24 works out to 38mm, just a moderate wide angle.

OTOH, if you're not needing to shoot a whole room at a time, having a wide wide may not be an issue at all. They're both good choices, I've been happy with my 17-55, build-quality is quite good enough, and I have a rain-cover for mist or extreme dust.

I recommend the 24-105L because its a very wide range and also the build quality is top notch. I've always used L lenses and recently picked up a mint condition 24-105L off of ebay for $700 so you might want check ebay or even a lens rental store. If you are truly undecided you can always rent and see which one best suits you.

YES! Just got it. The camera is so good in low-light the the f/4 is not a problem. Great lens. Could end up being the one to stay on the camera most of the time (over the 17-55).

For news and documentaries I'll recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8 no question. The 24mm is about 40mm on a FF sensor - which is okay if you're never going to shoot wide angles.

If you can't afford two good zooms then you could try the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, which is great. The VC version might be better for handheld use but I don't know how well it works with the C100. You can add a 70-200 f/4 later.

If you're in a little village I highly recommend you get hold of an old film SLR and see what focal lengths you want before ordering anything. You could even use a smartphone app like the Artemis Viewfinder first.

Hope this helps.

And just to clarify: yes, in the perfect world, you'd have *both* the 17-55 IS USM and the 24-105 L -- but only saying that I am blown away with how much can be done with an f/4

I ended up getting them both for a decent price used. Will see which one I like more and will likely sell the one I use less.

24-105 build quality is superb, but 24mm on the crop frame might not be wide enough to cut in with my style of shooting. But sure will be fun checking it out!

It seems a lot of us end up with both!

In my case I began with the 17-55 (paired with a 70-200)... and later bought a 24-105 as an all purpose lens when I didn't want to switch.

But I'm thinking of selling te 24-105 now as I end up returning to the 17-55, despite its limited reach. I tend to shoot interviews wide open, and really appreciated the extra stop (for tighter DOF in standard focal length shots). If anything, I feel the 17-55 IQ is superior (it's an L in this regard as others routinely report), and I've never had any issues with build quality / dust.

As Daniel mentioned, it is a tad annoying that the 17-55's focus ring is narrower and falls in a non-standard position relative to the zoom ring.

I love the 24-105 a lot. Its my go to lens on the C300 for interviews. I set the shot for a tight at 105mm and then zoom out for my medium/wides. The 24-105 is parfocal. Well I guess it's hard to confirm but I have had great success with it. You just have to make sure you set focus at 105mm then pull out. Works very well for me. I think it's a must own lens due to the range as well as the sharpness.

For you guys that have the 24-105 f4, do you miss the shallow depth of field on the c100? I can assume that on the longer range, throwing backgrounds out of focus is not an issue, but what about on the wider end?

Hmmm, I'd call it a 'safe and practical' DoF. LOL.

Doing a rough an 'eyeballing' sort of comparison (I'm just finishing off an edit from a job I've been doing since 2004 'back in the day' of the DSR-570, so I can compare a few standard shots), I'd have said the 24-105 was on the improved side of working with a 2/3" camera wide open on a standard ENG lens.

FWIW, I did a comparison with an S35 lens at f8 compared to an EX1R's built-in lens (half inch chip) at f2.8, and again the S35 lens was a tad shallower. At f8.

I've still got 1.4 35mm and 50mm lenses, and the 2.8 17-55, so if I need wafer-thin DoF, they're in the bag.

As has been mentioned many times before, nicest to have both.

FWIW, I did a comparison with an S35 lens at f8 compared to an EX1R's built-in lens (half inch chip) at f2.8, and again the S35 lens was a tad shallower. At f8.

Interesting comparison. Is the S35 lens at f/8 shallower than the EX1R lens at all equivalent focal lengths?
Edit: pretty easy to find out http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

As has been mentioned many times before, nicest to have both.

I agree that it's good to have low-light and shallow dof when you need it, and deep focus when you need it. One question I've always wondered though, with both still and video, is whether a big sensor is necessarily a net gain in terms of "raw" image quality.

Say you for whatever reason must match the dof between the EX1 and the C100, how far must you stop down your lens on the latter for any given equivalent focal length? And by the time you stop so far down, will the image actually become "worse" than the EX1's because by that time you will have had turned up the gain so much?

Of course in practice there're too many variables to allow generalization. Matt's already posted about how EX1 resolves lines more than FS100. But what I mean is, if somehow we could isolate only sensor size and aperture/dof and "raw" image quality, "all other things being constant" as they say in science.

"yeah but..." - don't forget diffraction.

This is one of the sucky things about smaller sensors.

I 'cut my teeth' with the Sony PD-150 - 3xCCD 1/3" camera. If you set the iris beyond 5.6, nasty, nasty things happened. Soft, almost like condensation was inside the CCD block.

The bigger the sensor, the smaller the 'hole' can be. 5"x4" Sinar plate camera? f45! PDX-10 1/4" sensor? f4!

So the EX1R came 'on song' at f4, happy at f5.6, began to look a little jaded by f8. PD150/Z1 at 1/3" happy at about 1/3 stop less than that. S35 lenses on C100 are sort of kosher to f11, running out of steam by f16, but very happy at f8. Seeing a pattern here.

For you guys that have the 24-105 f4, do you miss the shallow depth of field on the c100? I can assume that on the longer range, throwing backgrounds out of focus is not an issue, but what about on the wider end?

If I'm shooting an interview the I would be at around 50mm to 85mm range at f4. I like it when the subject IS in focus. The whole subject. Including their ears. If you shoot at 1.4 or 2.0 and your subject moves a little then they go out of focus. Not good. The background is plenty defocused at least for my taste. Razor thin DOF can be distracting as much as it is cool.

I'm looking for a camera upgrade, and with the 1000k price drop, the c100 really interests me. Question on purchasing a zoom lens: I need a zoom lens to zoom in and out while recording, like on my video camcorders that have a zoom rocker, or that I can connect a lanc varizoom. Is there a zoom lens that someone can recommend? I shoot plays and concerts that require me to consistantely zoom in and out on the fly.

If you're doing tons of plays and concerts, the XF300 is an outstanding choice.