So, I have made the decision, a C100 is the new camera for me. I currently own a Panasonic HMC150, which has done me proud, but now I'm looking for something that's going to give me a nicer image and some good DOF for interviews.

I do corporate work pretty much all of the time. Most of it is run and gun-type shoots, one of the reasons this camera is my new purchase-of-choice. Mainly interviews at trade shows, in offices etc (fairly close proximity) plus event coverage of seminars. My question is....WHAT LENSES?! I'm a complete noob, starting from scratch. I appreciate there are many considerations, and budgets. I need to keep costs to a fair-minimum - and I guess I probably need 2 alternatives. I really like the out of focus background look, and I will most likely need IS for some of my location shooting.

I may also invest in a Glidecam, in which case I understand I am better off with a wide angle?

I really hope someone would be kind enough to help a noob out! :) Thanks

Here is an example of the kind of thing I would be filming with the C100

Why Make A Trade Show Video? - Captive8 Media Video Production on Vimeo

Matthew, having come from the 150 as well, I think you are making the right decision. I really like my C100, it's the best camera I've ever used. It has irritations, as do all of them, but a few thoughts.

I find the 24-105 a great choice as the first lens. F4 is fine, given the ISO range you have to work with. It will give you some range and a bit of wide angle. For trade shows, you might want to invest in the canon 14mm f2.8l rectilinear. It's a superb lens but pricey, it will give you that wide range you need to 'get it all in'. I also have a 16-35mm which is really the second lens behind the 24-105. If I'm working run and gun wide I use it, if I am shooting interviews I use the 24-105. Occassionally I use the 70-200mm for interviews, when I want to get farther back and really drop out the background. Between those three (or four) you will be covered. My personal take is 24-105 about 70% of the time, 16-35 20% of the time, and the others as needed.

You likely will need a Zacuto finder, or maybe, in lieu of that, either an external monitor, or one of the newer monitor/422 recorders. Those are critical for me as it's very hard to focus in bright sunlight. My pet peeve with this camera. Have fun.

17-55 canon 2,8 -:) is,tokina 11-16 2,8

I need to keep costs to a fair-minimum - and I guess I probably need 2 alternatives. I really like the out of focus background look, and I will most likely need IS for some of my location shooting.

You may be already aware that Canon are now shipping C100s with the Dual Pixel AF 'factory enabled'.

If, like me, you're shooting lots of B-Roll as well as interviews at trade shows, two lenses I use regularly are the Canon 18-135 STM and the Sigma 50mm 1.4.

The Canon 18-135 STM took me a long time to learn its odd ways, but the AF and the IS is great. It's light, and it's cheap too. Surprisingly for me, it's kind of taken over from the 24-105.

However, I'd be lost without my Sigma 50mm f1.4, the 'go-to' interview lens. Used at f2 or 2.8 rather than 1.4, it still outperformed the Canon 50mm 1.4 - after 2.8, the Canon wins but that's not the point. LOL

BTW, the Sigma's AF is absolutely awful, unusable. However, as a manual lens used almost wide open, it's great. I'd also recommend the Samyang 35mm 1.4 and especially the 85mm 1.4, which is simply gorgeous - but they're tripod-only lenses.

Im with Matt on the sigma but we use the 35mm and its crazy sharp. Dont forget, the C100 has a crop factor of just under 1.6x. So any lens you stick on the front times that by 1.6. So the 35mm becomes a 50mm lens.

We've just written a blog post listing our entire kit bag for MintySlippers (which uses C100) and A Hint of Mint (which uses DSLR).

THE MINTYSLIPPERS KIT BAG | Minty Slippers (http://www.mintyslippers.com/the-mintyslippers-kit-bag/)

Great article, Danny. Can you share your settings for matching C100's to a 6D?

Thank you so much for the advise! Really appreciate it. However, just in these few replies I have so many options to consider!

So, to get myself set up Im thinking of following Matt's advice with a CANON EF-S 18-135MM F/3.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (Non-original packaging) - Only £299.00 - Park Cameras Online (http://www.parkcameras.com/24977/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3-5-5-6-IS-STM--Non-original-packaging-.html?referrer=Froogle&gclid=CL3Sr8jE1L0CFQ7MtAodI2QADA)

and

Is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 really much better than the Canon 50mm f1.4? There doesn't seem to be much price difference. The Canon 14mm f2.8l rectilinear is VERY expensive- is there a cheaper alternative? Or will these other 2 lenses suffice? Matt...you are local - where in Berkshire are you? Im in Fleet, Hampshire. There might be the opportunity for a second C100 on certain shoots so we should probably talk!

Im with Matt on the sigma but we use the 35mm and its crazy sharp. Dont forget, the C100 has a crop factor of just under 1.6x. So any lens you stick on the front times that by 1.6. So the 35mm becomes a 50mm lens.


I wish people would stop repeating this. It's not quite true the way you have phrased it. The field of view changes, not the focal length. A 35mm lens on the C100 is still a 35mm lens, only the field of view is different. The focal length is still 35mm. (and the C100 crop factor is actually more like 1.5).

And this is only compared to Full Frame, so if you're not a Full Frame photographer, then you won't be thinking in terms of the field of view when picturing what your shot will look like on each lens.

I wish people would stop repeating this. It's not quite true the way you have phrased it. The field of view changes, not the focal length. A 35mm lens on the C100 is still a 35mm lens, only the field of view is different. The focal length is still 35mm. (and the C100 crop factor is actually more like 1.5).

And this is only compared to Full Frame, so if you're not a Full Frame photographer, then you won't be thinking in terms of the field of view when picturing what your shot will look like on each lens.

1.56 to be exact so just under 1.6 which is what I said.

So everything I said isn't true and people should ignore me?

to get myself set up Im thinking of following Matt's advice with a CANON EF-S 18-135MM F/3.5-5.6 IS STM

There is an alternative:

Canon CN7x17 KAS S E1/P1 - Cine Lenses - Canon UK (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Digital_Cinema/Cine_Lenses/CN7x17_KAS_S_E1-P1/)

It's a little faster - f3-f4, you lose a little on reach - it's 17-120 rather than 18-135 - but gain a little on the wide I suppose. The best bit is that it's a motorised zoom, ENG style. I think the optics are a little more refined here - it's described as a 4K lens (even though the 18-135 is a photo lens that exceeds 4K). The price? Oh, £22,500 + VAT - a bargain, really.

Is the Sigma 50mm f1.4 really much better than the Canon 50mm f1.4?

Only when it's wide-open and then down to between f2.8 and f4. I borrwed a Canon 50mm 1.4 and didn't get on with it as a video lens. As a photographic lens, it's an absolute corker. Quite the reverse of the Sigma. The Sigma has, IMHO, a cleaner prettier bokeh and that's what we want from such a lens. As has been mentioned, it's a little 'tele' on the C100's S35 sensor which again is very flattering for portraiture, bringing the nose tip and ears together in perspective. the Samyang 35mm 1.4 is more of a neutral angle.

There is a Sigma 18-35 1.8 which everyone raves about. You lose half a stop, but may not lose bite and crispness if you're ending up at f2.0 - as a general rule, no lens is at its best wide open. Nipping in by a stop or two improves things tremendously.

Matt...you are local - where in Berkshire are you? Im in Fleet, Hampshire. There might be the opportunity for a second C100 on certain shoots so we should probably talk!

Yes we should! I'm based in Sunny Slough.

So everything I said isn't true and people should ignore me?

That's not what I said. You give the impression that a 35mm on the C100 turns into a 50mm with the way you phrased it. And that's not true. It's still a 35mm.

First, you come from the point that the individual in question has experience with a Full Frame stills camera. That may not be the case, so in the situation of thinking about what lens to use, the whole crop factor may not even come into play. So why do people keep mentioning it on any form factor that is not full frame? It's ridiculous to keep bringing it up unless someone starts out by saying that their lenses seem more zoomed in on the C100 than on the 5D that they were using.

Second, saying, "So the 35mm becomes a 50mm lens." doesn't really paint an accurate picture and can be confusing for people who may not have a solid foundation in what the crop factor deal is. You're just tossing it out like it's a negative in the way you phrase it, when in reality, everything from APS-C to m4/3 is not problematic in this regard at all in general practice. I routinely use a 50mm on my C100 and am actively looking into even getting an 85mm, and I will know the look of both lenses on my C100, and not give a single thought to how the crop factor comes into play vs Full Frame.

There is an alternative:

Canon CN7x17 KAS S E1/P1 - Cine Lenses - Canon UK (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Digital_Cinema/Cine_Lenses/CN7x17_KAS_S_E1-P1/)

It's a little faster - f3-f4, you lose a little on reach - it's 17-120 rather than 18-135 - but gain a little on the wide I suppose. The best bit is that it's a motorised zoom, ENG style. I think the optics are a little more refined here - it's described as a 4K lens (even though the 18-135 is a photo lens that exceeds 4K). The price? Oh, £22,500 + VAT - a bargain, really.

Yes we should! I'm based in Sunny Slough.

Well, why didn't you say?! I'll get 2 so I have a spare...!

Glorious Slough! Pretty close then. Well, could I buy you a beer/lunch, in exchange for maybe taking a look at a couple of your lens suggestions and a bit of networking for potential future collaboration?!

If you can afford it you can't go wrong with the 17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4 IS combo - these cover off most situations for corporate / run & gun / seminar shoots.

Another option would be the 24-105 f4 as a versatile all rounder, and a moderately priced prime (the 85mm f1.8 is great value) for low light / tight DOF.

And to throw in something from left field, of the many lenses I've used with the C300/100 the one I most enjoy is the little Voigtlander 40mm f2. It's tiny (near pancake size), all metal, has a beautiful focus ring for video, is wide enough to shoot hand-held, is near macro, and has lovely image quality. Makes the C100 incredibly compact.

Josh, are you suggesting those as 2 different potential pairings of lenses?

This is part of the problem I have had....there are SOOO many options, on this thread alone, and no clear answer. I basically want to get 2 lenses which should serve me well to start with...

Hi Matthew,

Yes that's right, either set, not both. The 17-55 or 24-105 were mentioned at the start of the thread: you couldn't go wrong with either as the foundation for your kit. There are other options, but these two give you constant aperture and IS.

Personally I favour the 17-55 (it's faster and wider, a great handheld lens) but in some situations it doesn't have enough reach, which is why I'd probably only choose that in combination with something like the 70-200 f4 (useful for tight shots, interviews in larger rooms, filming seminars etc). You could go with the more affordable non-Is version of the 70-200 if it's tripod mounted.

Alternatively, the 24-105 is versatile but a tad slow (ie:, only f4). This is why I suggested pairing it with a fast prime (50mm or 85m) to cater for low light or tight depth of field shots. There may be occasions when it's not quite wide enough or not quite tight enough, which is why I'd probably favour the twin zoom option.

Matt's suggestion of the 18-135 is certainly an affordable option with a great focal range, but bear in mind as it's a variable aperture lens your exposure will change as you zoom in / out if you're shooting wide open.

You could always pick up a couple of options second hand, see how you like them, and offload them (at little or no cost) a month later if you find they're not your cup of tea.

But again, the 17-55 or 24-105 have proven to be the mainstay lenses for many many C series shooters and you couldn't go wrong with either.

Enjoy!

Matthew, your confusion is understandable. Lots of choices, but also lots of shooting styles. Almost everything I saw on your sample reel there could be done with the 17 - 55. My personal experience at large events like trade shows is that you are moving very fast. Not a lot of setup time. I often want a series of very wide establishing shots, so that's why, if I were still doing these, I'd likely invest in the 14. I can easily get signage in focus right or left side frame and the booth or other content in focus on the other side of the frame. Says a lot to the viewer. For the rest, which would include medium shots to short tele throws, I would use my 24 to 105. Two lenses for most of the days' shoot. Someone else might favor slightly wider shots overall and moving in closer for interviews. I tend to put a lav on the interviewee and stand back. Totally your personal style.

Matt's suggestion of the 18-135 is certainly an affordable option with a great focal range, but bear in mind as it's a variable aperture lens your exposure will change as you zoom in / out if you're shooting wide open.

And PMJI but the trick is to 'not film with it wide open' - clamp it to f6.3, and there's no variance in exposure.

But, I hear you exclaim, f6.3?! That's virtually a pinhole camera, is it not?

Well, no as a matter of fact.

When I got into the FS100 with its odd but functional 18-200 lens, I put it side by side with my trusty EX1 - a half inch camera that will film everything from a war zone to a wedding (lots of similarities come to think of it) to a chromakey shoot. At f8, the Sony E-Mount lens on an S35 sensor beat the half inch EX1 for DoF. It was absolutely fine.

Fast forward a bit, and I'm using my C100 which has a slightly larger sensor. I compare it side by side with the EX1 again, with the 24-105 to start with, then the 18-135, and the C100 is better still. Better separation through DoF. And the 18-135 at f6.3 had (ahem, Canon?) LESS ramping than the 24-105. I really hated the 18-135 when I first got it, but now I've got it working with the C100, with the exposure compensation and iris control, we're cool. But the 24-105 zoom losing 2/3 of a stop is something to watch out for.

Just sayin'.

Just to update you all, I now have my C100 and I am waiting for delivery of my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS.

Would a Canon EF 85mm f1.8 be a good partner lens to go with this? Its a good price, and I hear good things. Any thoughts? Or alternatives that cost similar? (£300).

Thanks!

I have nothing but good things to say about the Samyang 85mm 1.4. Astonishing portrait lens when you have the room to use it.

Matt, that does look great! So this and the lens I have ordered would be a good set for me to be up and running would you say? How are you next week for that drink and C100 tutorial session?! : )

Would love to, but I'll be in Paris shooting small sparkly things! LOL

But good call - we do need to meet up, if only for a great beer or three.

I'd also point you towards the Samyang 35mm 1.4 - I've owned one before (Nikkor mount), I'm teetering on going for the Cine version on EOS mount, but with extra budget I'm also thinking about the Sigma 18-35 which everyone raves about. Nothing wrong with the Samyang 35! Figuratively on the knife-edge between them.

Also, there's the Sigma 50mm 1.4 - I love mine for video, hate it with a passion for photography, AF sucks, but great wide-open performance. Ideally I'd have stuck to one manufacturer of primes - either Sigma or Samyang all the way through. Samyang don't make a 50, Sigma don't have a cine outlook. Hmm. Come on Samyang, release a good 50 with cine iris and geared rings! That would make the choice easy. As would a cinefied 18-35!

Too many options again!! Which one?!!

Because of the crop factor on the C100 an 85mm is going to be the equivalent of about 127mm which is pretty long. It will be a specialty lens that will work for interviews & portraits when you have the room but won't be very versatile. I have the 85 f1.2 and it's gorgeous but just not that usable for run & gun and I'll leave it behind if I can only bring a couple of lenses. Since you have the 24-105 as your base lens I would suggest the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. That will give you the wide end you're missing from the 24-105 (36 equivalent vs 27mm on Sigma) and will give you a fast 35mm & 50mm equivalent for low light and bokeh.

The 24-105 is my base lens for the C100 and I had also bought a 17-55 to cover the wide end and give me an extra stop for low light. The 17-55 is a great lens but never impressed me on the C100 so I recently sold it and got the Sigma 18-35. The Sigma definitely has the wow factor that the 17-55 was missing. Great contrast and sharpness wide open and creamy bokeh. It's a good complement to the 24-105 and they make a nice 2 lens kit for run & gun. I can highly recommend the combination.

Because of the crop factor on the C100 an 85mm is going to be the equivalent of about 127mm which is pretty long. It will be a specialty lens that will work for interviews & portraits when you have the room but won't be very versatile. I have the 85 f1.2 and it's gorgeous but just not that usable for run & gun and I'll leave it behind if I can only bring a couple of lenses.

So are you saying that the 85mm f/1.2 is totally useable in run-and-gun situations on a 5D Mark III? Is that your other camera?

So are you saying that the 85mm f/1.2 is totally useable in run-and-gun situations on a 5D Mark III? Is that your other camera?

Ha, hopefully the post didn't read as a statement that the 85 1.2 is a "run and gun" lens! My other camera is a 5DIII and I would use the 24-105 and the 85 f1.2 with that as a "run and gun" kit in the sense that I'd use the 24-105 for all the hand held stuff and if there's an opportunity to lock off the camera on a tripod and grab some shots with more shallow depth of field or if I absolutely needed the extra stops I'd use the 85. 90% of the shoot would probably be on the 24-105 with some speciality pick ups on the 85mm. But even with either the c100 or 5DIII if I was limited to a 2 lens kit for run and gun I'd prefer to bring a fast 35 or 50 prime instead of the 85 because I consider those focal lengths more versatile for that type of shooting.

My other camera is a 5DIII and I would use the 24-105 and the 85 f1.2 with that as a "run and gun" kit in the sense that I'd use the 24-105 for all the hand held stuff and if there's an opportunity to lock off the camera on a tripod and grab some shots with more shallow depth of field or if I absolutely needed the extra stops I'd use the 85.

That's exactly how I typically run-and-gun with the C100 as well, so I don't see what the crop factor has to do with anything.

If your camera has no inbuilt stabilization like the Olympus omd series or if you use non stabilized lenses, especially on the longer ranges, it will be far from easy to get nice and stable images from it if you are shooting handheld with a 85mm, if that is what you understand under "run and gun". On aps-c and m4/3 size sensor camera's with a cropfactor of resp 1.5 and 2.0 I would only use up to a 24/25mm non stabilized lens handheld, a 85mm lens would result if fairly unusable footage due to the vibration/shake you get in the image, not sure how that translated to a c100 as it has a different cropfactor but in any way a tripod would not be a luxury when using a 85mm non stabilized lens.

Great advice here and all very workable to your needs. I give another vote to the 17-50 focal length -a Tamron in my case - plus a Canon 70-200 f4 L for close ups. This is a great base point I've used since the dslr days.

I recently bought a Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar for interviews (so sharp at f2.8) and have since added a Zeiss 25/2 Distagon Lens - I love the bokeh of the zeiss family of lenses. I have begun only using the Zeiss's on recent promo shoots and love them - ok there's a bit more lens swapping but I'm finding myself having to be more creative and therefore the footage is nicer IMHO. I'd become lazy with the Tamron! Lol

For the really wide end I'm looking at new Samyangs 10 or 12mm cine lenses.

More food for thought. :)

n aps-c and m4/3 size sensor camera's with a cropfactor of resp 1.5 and 2.0 I would only use up to a 24/25mm non stabilized lens handheld, a 85mm lens would result if fairly unusable footage due to the vibration/shake you get in the image

But on a 5D Mark III would you totally run-and-gun handheld with an 85mm?

Sorry, I maybe should have mentioned but my reply was directed to Matthew.

I'm finding the Canon 15-85mm EFS lens a very useful lens.

OK, so how about I go for the Tamron 17-55? £235 from a seller on Amazon? Will this give me a nice wide angle for close interviews? The DOF is really a look that I want to go for.

Thanks

OK, so how about I go for the Tamron 17-55? £235 from a seller on Amazon? Will this give me a nice wide angle for close interviews? The DOF is really a look that I want to go for.

Thanks

Just make sure it's the top end Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC. There seems to be a cheaper version with no IS or VC as they call it.

Will this give me a nice wide angle for close interviews?

A wide angle, but possibly not a nice wide angle... :-)

My suggestions:

1) Slow down. Get to know your camera and 24-105 a bit first.

2) You will need a 70-200 IS (2.8 or 4.0 - weight versus speed) sooner than you might think.

3) 17--55 as well as a 24-105? Hmmm, at this stage in your game, I'd say one or the other.

4) Buy L series lenses. If you can't afford them right now, you will be able to soon.

5) Then start looking at 3rd party and more interesting lenses - you'll have your bread and butter collection of life-long lenses and you can just have fun after that.

6) You'll look back in a year's time and remember this thread with a wry smile. Never forget - buy cheap, buy twice. It's an awful cliche. But it's full to the brim with truth.

Ben.

I use the 24-105 and the 18-135 and they're both great lenses for the c100s. As for the Canon 85 1.8, it's long been one of my favourites. Somehow it sprinkles faerie dust on my pics on the 5D3 and there's just something about it on the C100 for video that looks great.

I also have the Rokinon 85 1.4 which seems sharper, but I still prefer the canon.

I'm with Ben on a lot of this....
A wide angle, but possibly not a nice wide angle... :-)

My suggestions:

1) Slow down. Get to know your camera and 24-105 a bit first.
Amen.
2) You will need a 70-200 IS (2.8 or 4.0 - weight versus speed) sooner than you might think.
Yep. Owning the f4 I would recommend the 2.8.
3) 17--55 as well as a 24-105? Hmmm, at this stage in your game, I'd say one or the other.
Wider is better IMHO. I own the 16-35 Canon.

4) Buy L series lenses. If you can't afford them right now, you will be able to soon.
Totally Agreed. Fabulous lenses.

5) Then start looking at 3rd party and more interesting lenses - you'll have your bread and butter collection of life-long lenses and you can just have fun after that.
Correct.

6) You'll look back in a year's time and remember this thread with a wry smile. Never forget - buy cheap, buy twice. It's an awful cliche. But it's full to the brim with truth.
Having bought cheap more times than I wish, I agree. Just do it right the first time. Your lenses are your real investment, not the camera.

Ben.

By the way, if you don't buy the 16-35 I'd seriously think of spending the money on the 14mm 2.8. You will find it useful in many tight quarters with either the 5D or the C100. I've shot on boats, which are always tight, small rooms with lots of people in them, and that overhead shot that sets the scene.

I don't have a C100 (yet) but I have a fair amount of experience with Canon glass. I concur with the recommendation of L glass, with the exception that I would recommend the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the EF 24-105 f/4.0L IS. I have owned both. For the C100 sensor size, the 17-55 should be perfect. It is "L" quality in image, but not in build quality. When I moved from crop DSLRs to full frame DSLRs I sold my 17-55, but if I get a C100, I would get another one immediately.

The other non "L" which I recommend (and still own) is the Tokina 11-16. Apparently there is now a Cinema version ( metal body, geared rings, de-stopped aperture, etc.).

the tamron 17-50 is vc is a bit tedious to work with as the focus ring goes in the opposite direction to canon lenses. on my one the zoom is pretty stiff too which makes reframing not as swift as one would want. in saying that it's good value to get started before buying something better