My C300 mk2 EF should arrive this week and I’m trying to decide on the best lenses to use. I already have the Canon 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200, all L 2.8 mk1, but for mainly doc use I think I’ll need more stabilisation. Only my 70-200 is stabilised and it’s maybe not up to modern stabilised quality but would be ok on a tripod - I don’t think I could hand hold at that sort of length.

So far, I think the EF24-105mm f/4 L IS mk2 looks a safe bet, coupled with my 70-200, leaving me short at the wide angle end.

Do you guys have any recommendations? Thanks in advance.

I would wait until reviews start coming out for the 24-105 L II. The Canon press on this is very lackluster, mostly touting less vignetting for full frame sensors. If it's not substantially improved over the Mark 1, the Mark 1 will be super cheap.

I have the 70-200 f/4 L which has OIS and is a terrific lens. With the low-light sensitivity of the C300 Mark II, I appreciate how much less heft it has over the L II f/2.8, so if you upgrade, that might be an option to consider.

Otherwise, I highly recommend the 17-55 f/2.8. It does not vignette if you don't use the hood (it will slightly at 17mm), it has OIS, and great image quality. It's not as sealed as the 24-70 L (I had to have it cleaned out last month as some dust had collected on the front element), but otherwise it's a champ.

Also, the 18-35 Sigma is not stabilized, but a great lens in its own right (more neutral colors than the warmer Canon lenses, f/1.8). It's terrific for interviews. In that vein, the Sigma 50-100 is also good if you want more of a reach, also not stabilized, and with far more noticeable breathing, but, like the 18-35, is probably a great lens for interviews.

Gary and I are on the same page, 17-55 2.8 IS makes much more sense for your needs than the 24-105. The FOV of 24mm on a S35 sensor is not wide at all and for doc use, I can't imagine that you won't need wide. 17-55 only leaves between 56mm to 69mm not covered, you are then covered from 70mm upwards with your 70-200. The original 24-105 is a terrible lens, I have shot with it many times. It's not sharp, the IS is generations behind the current and it has a lot of barrel distortion at the "wide" end. I have not tested the new 24-105, I am sure it is better than the original, but that's not saying much. I like my 18-135 STM IS much better but it's slow (3.5-5.6), variable F stop, and the the focus by wire is sucky, build quality is not very good either but the focal range is perfect and the STM and IS are superior over the 24-105 V1.

I am also buying a 17-55 2.8 IS though because I need the speed for my work and I am also buying the 70-200 2.8 IS II. The 17-55 2.8, paired with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, is a doc shooters dream team, you are essentially covered from 17mm to 200mm at a constant 2.8 and with IS. Together, they are the perfect two lens kit. If Canon made an 18-135 STM IS 2.8 with better build quality at $2k, that would be my perfect lens but until they do, this two lens kit will work for me. I shoot BTS and EPK on TV shows, it's doc style shooting, often at night, in low light back stage and the current 18-135 cover it for exteriors but at night and back stage, more speed is needed.

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS will never sport a red ring or carry an "L" designation... but it's on the same level as L series lenses as far as optical quality goes. It's a perfect match for the C300 Mk. II.

About the previous version of the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS: in my experience when shooting video with this lens, the stabilizer transmits some audible chatter -- like a ratchet -- through the camera body and onto the soundtrack (single system sound, obviously). I'm hoping that the new Mk. II version of this lens has a much quieter IS, but we won't know that until it hits the streets.

So, like Gary suggests, I would wait for reviews before purchasing. You can't go wrong with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS though.

As a side note, I find it curious that so far there is no such thing as an L-series Canon lens with STM.

Great response, thanks guys. I'm just off to a job but will read your ideas carefully and reply tomorrow. Thanks again.

Gary, Dan, Chris, your comments helped me to decide - thanks.

The mk 1 25-205 seems to be a bit of a dog, so that’s a no no. Even if the mk 2 is a lot better it still doesn’t give me the best spread of focal lengths.

Everyone agrees that the 17-55 2.8 is the way to go, so that’s the way I’ll go. The only slight concern I have is Gary’s mention of the vignetting at 17mm. I’ll be using a matt box so that might restrict the wide shots a bit. It’s a combination of suck it and see and fingers crossed.

I’ll try my mk 1 70-200 IS to see how it copes, stability wise. The lens is pin sharp with a good bokeh so I’m crossing my fingers. If its not up to the job then I’ll get the mk 2, 2.8 as that extra stop of light might just be useful, even allowing for the C300’s capabilities.

Again, thanks guys. DV Info is a brilliant forum.

My C300 mk2 EF should arrive this week and I’m trying to decide on the best lenses to use. I already have the Canon 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200, all L 2.8 mk1, but for mainly doc use I think I’ll need more stabilisation. Only my 70-200 is stabilised and it’s maybe not up to modern stabilised quality but would be ok on a tripod - I don’t think I could hand hold at that sort of length.

So far, I think the EF24-105mm f/4 L IS mk2 looks a safe bet, coupled with my 70-200, leaving me short at the wide angle end.

Do you guys have any recommendations? Thanks in advance.
I'd also throw in the new 18-80mm Compact Servo coming in December....it is basically a 24-105 (in S35 numbers), has stabilizing & auto focus, makes the C300 MK II much more a shoulder mount type feeling, is coming from the Cinema Lens division. Amazingly only $5700 (w/grip), not $20-30K...and it is the first in a series of affordable Compact Servos...

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

Interesting thought, Jim, but at the moment just not good business sense for the work I'm doing. That might change, hopefully will, and then it will certainly be one to consider.

That new lens looks really great Jim, I will definitely be renting it for a few shoots and if I fall in love, I may buy it. I wish it was a bit faster, but I know, it would be bigger, heavier and double the cost. The fact that it supports DPAF is really cool. All of the great new lenses from IBC look amazing but I keep telling myself, they are for narrative shooters, not doc shooters who rarely have an AC to pull focus so I land back on my existing EF lenses and this new one as the best tool for what I shoot. I miss shooting servo lenses, I had them for years on my Betacam, Varicam and even on the HVX200 and HPX170 they were really useful at times.

Just a quick follow up to the help given re my lens choice. I bought the 17-55 and couldn't be happier with it. Optically it more than holds its own with my Canon 16-35 2.8, which is no slouch. Stabilisation is good - not perfect but good enough to make handheld acceptable. I thoroughly recommend it as a good match for the C300mk2.

Re my 70-200 2.8 L, the stabilisation is better than I expected so if I don't reach out too near to 200mm I can just about get away with brief handheld. And on the tripod, it's a great performer.

Thanks again, guys, for the advice.

Edit: forgot to say that I don't get any vignetting at 17mm, which was the only concern. That might change when I stick a matte box on, but fingers crossed I will be ok. Don't get any with the 16-35 either. Luck of the draw, maybe.

Stewart,
I would suggest you to try the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II lens. It is much better than the Version 1. The version II is better in terms of optics as well as image stabilisation.

The 24-105 helps in a lot of crunch situations. However, as Chris has said, the 24-105 at times can be noisy. However, this is a very useful focal length for doc and run and gun situations. I have heard the new version is better. We will know when it hits the market. As Jim Martin has said, the new CN-E 18-80 would be a very nice focal length as well and it would have the quality and ergonomics and image stabilisation. I am told within the next three years, Canon will give us a series of such useful lenses.

Using the DPAF, I am able to do slow zoom in/zoom out with the still lenses. But can't get the smoothness of the servo. So eagerly waiting for the CN-E 18-80.

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS will never sport a red ring ... As a side note, I find it curious that so far there is no such thing as an L-series Canon lens with STM.

I found a thin red rubberband works a treat if needed. :-)

Is the stabilizer on the 17-55mm quiet? How quiet is the AF it since it isn't STM?

Hi Sabyasachi,
Thanks for the input re the 70-200 mk2. It's something I've considered but I want to test my mk1 more thoroughly before I make a decision. I'm also considering the 70-200 f4. It's a stop "darker" but that might not be a major problem for me.I have the Canon 1.4 converter and I also want to see how this performs on the mk1. You never know, I might actually be able to do some work after all this testing!

Les,
Yes, the stabiliser seem silent on my 17-55, or at least I've not been aware of it even in a quiet room so I doubt if it's a problem. With the AF, I sometimes set the camera to focus assist, where it does the last bit, and there's the faintest of whirring as it does the final focus but I'd be surprised it that gets picked up by the camera.But just in case, it's best to suck it and see - YMMV.

Like the red band idea too!

Stewart,
I have used/owned the 70-200 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS before moving on to the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

During my still photography days, I had written an article about the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM (http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/canon-ef-70-200-f2-8-l-is-usm/) I was fine with its performance with the 1.4x. However with the 2x TC it was not great at f5.6. This lens is a good and cheaper alternative.

However, I love the version II and use it with both the 1.4x as well as 2x TCs. This is a very high quality lens and it helps a lot in my filming as well as in photography. http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-review/

Buying equipment is always (should be) a business decision. May be you can also borrow or hire the version II and compare it side by side.

Some time ago, I went from the 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS to the 200/2.8L prime for stills and the improvement was amazing. I then went to the 70-200/2.8L II IS and expected some drop off compared to the prime, but no! It rivaled the prime while adding zoom and IS capabilities. (This is based on experience, rather than scientific measurements.) The only drawback was size, weight, and the lack of stealth. But yeah, the lens is that good.

For video, the stabilization is great at removing micro vibrations. I once used this lens with a digital zoom (not with the C300) that effectively made it a 1000mm lens. I had to hold my breath when panning during the live event, but the video held up. (And people loved the tight closeups shot from the back of the room.)

I haven't compared it to the series I lens through, so I can't comment on the gap between the I and II. I'm just saying that the II is crazy great. :)

I took delivery of both the EF-S17-55 2.8 IS and the EF 70-200 2.8 USM IS II the day before yesterday. Both are amazingly great pieces of glass. I have been renting both for years, it's nice to not have to do the www.lensrentals.com drill every time I want to use them. I have rented the 70-200 2.8 IS I many times, the II version is worth the extra coin. I think this lens is one of the best lenses ever made and is definitely extraordinary value for the money, it comes amazingly close to the $30k Canon cinema zooms in image quality. If you are on the fence, go for it, you will wonder why you didn't sooner. Canon has the Amex gift card rebates right now, I am getting back $50.00 on the 17-55 and $100.00 on the 70-200. So I can buy more Canon glass! ;-)

Ok, I hear you Sabyasachi, Jon and Dan. I'll do some side-by-side tests with my 70-200 mk1 and a mk2. I'm hoping you're all wrong and my mk 1 holds up. Are you guys related to my dealer :) ?

I hope your Mk I holds up as well. I use the Mk II we have here at work. If the Mk I is as good, I'll start shopping for one on craigslist!

Here's a comparison of sharpness at The-Digital-Picture. (Roll over the image for the comparison.)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens Image Quality (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)

The Mk II is brilliantly sharp. The Mk I is softer, but looks pleasant. For photos and 4K, the Mk II would seem to be really valuable. For HD, the Mk I might be just fine. Good video isn't about pixel peeping, it's about good, natural, organic images and the Mk I resolution charts looks like it can deliver exactly that, but without the crispness needed at higher resolutions. (Disclaimer: test charts are helpful but hardly tell the whole story.)

I'm looking forward to your hand-on review for video.

Well, did a quick comparison with the Canon 70-200 2.8 L mk 1 and mk 2, swapping lenses on the same camera locked on a tripod, checked f stop, etc and... the mk 2 is a tad sharper but you really have to look. That's on 4k. Apply just a hint of unsharpmask, really barely any, and theres no difference. I've long suspected my copy of the mk 1 is a good one, the variation in quality can be incredible (with all makes) so please don't take this as gospel. And of course, by that token, the mk2 could have been a less than perfect copy.

The only question I have is how much the difference would show up after some processing, especially going down the broadcast chain and there I'd be reluctant to use any sharpening in case of artefacts.

I didn't have time to check stabilisation, and probably won't as there's no way I can handhold this thing at those sort of lengths so it's not a parameter I'm interested in.

I was ready to buy, pretty convinced it would be an easy decision, but for now I'm going to hold off getting the mk2 until I've done more testing. Bottom line: always test to see if it suits your work, not somebody else's.

That's awesome that you were able to check it. And I'm not that surprised that the Mk I looks good. Based on those test shots, the blur is very uniform and is well-controlled with no discernible CA. I agree that some unsharp mask could do the trick, given that the blur in the corners, in the center, at 70mm and at 200mm are all consistent.

What wasn't obvious is that it would still look sharp enough at 4K. But we don't pixel peep video. A large print from a 50MP camera would be a completely different situation.

Regarding IS, I don't use the Mk II handheld. The advantage is that it removes micro-vibrations on a tripod. I'm curious if the Mk I does this as well. I think there are two tests: one is to slightly bump the tripod handle to see if the IS can clean it up. The other is to do a pan to see if the IS doesn't overshoot. Also, the IS needs to not get into a positive feedback loop and fight itself when on a tripod. I've never seen it, but I hear that some older IS designs have this problem. But I wouldn't worry about IS being strong enough for handheld video. I guess that the other test would be noise level. We don't want grinding sounds in our audio.

Jon, after another quick check, there's no way I'll be using to 70-200 handheld unless I happen to witness the plane crash, etc. It's just not steady enough for serious work.

And on the tripod, Canon recommend you leave the IS off and that's what I always do (and that also removes the danger of noise from the IS mechanism). I always rehearse my tripod based pans and tilts, etc, so I rarely get a bump. I'm not brilliant, just careful and paranoid about hiding as many of my mistakes as possible from clients! When I first used an IS lens I didn't know about switching the stabilisation off and couldn't work out why I was getting a) juddery pans and b) why it was overshooting at then end of the pan. I asked the question on a user group and got the answer: turn IS off. Which cured both problems.

So that might be one difference. I can use IS with the Mk II on a tripod and the results are good. In one case, I was on somewhat squishy carpet using a tripod with pads, rather than spikes. Just touching the handle caused shake. (I was using the 200/2.8L II prime at the time.) Later, I shot under similar circumstances, and the results were much improved with the Mk II IS. With slow pans, there's no visible overshoot, but there can be a split second where the pan continues for a moment as things are smoothed out. Pans start a moment late too. I previously mentioned where I shot a live 1000mm equivalent crop with this lens and IS was the key to making it look good. (Still, I held my breath every time I even thought about re-framing.)

But with a good tripod, a good surface, and good technique, IS isn't needed. It's more of a luxury and a safety net rather than a must-have. If you don't have a need for the higher resolution of the Mk II and get good stability with IS off, I'm with you. I'd keep the Mk I.

Ok some more lens tests lined up. My dealer is getting the Sigma 50-100 1.8 in and the new Canon 24-105 mk2. I tested a Canon 70-200 L f4 and agree with Gary, it's a terrific lens, it performed a little better than the 70-200 2.8 mk2 I tested. But if the Sigma works as well as it reviews then I'll get that one and keep my 70-200 mk1 for long range stuff. If the Sigma has any backfocus foibles I won't be interested. These days I expect to bolt things to the camera and have them work. Anything that fails is out the window. In that case, I'll be hoping the new 24-105 does the business. If that's naff then I'll probably opt for the Canon 70-200 f4 and manage without coverage from 55-70, which should be no problem. I'll post when I've tested.

When you say it "it performed a little better than the 70-200 2.8 mk2", in what regard?

It could be resolution, CA, vignetting, color, flare, coma, IS... Or maybe just the overall look, which can be hard to quantify.

I'll never forget going from the 70-300/4-5.6 IS to the 200/2.8L II. The improvement in overall look was staggering. Fine detail on animal fur always looked "gritty" on the cheaper zoom. It wasn't just softness. I think there was some color shift that really hurt the micro contrast. It was as if the lens elements were plastic compared to top-quality glass in the prime. It reminded me of the difference between a cheap, harsh transistor audio amp, compared to a high end Class-A amp. It wasn't just a matter of sharpness or obvious green-magenta CA. It was like cleaning the crud from a windshield.

Not that the f/4 would give anything like that improvement over the f/2.8, but sometimes lens improvement is about the feel of the image as much as anything measurable.

Good points, Jon. I was referring to both the resolution, marginally (very marginally - down to sample variance) better, and the overall look. As you say, diffcult to quantify. I have the camera set to correct CA and light falloff and didn't change that as I'm only interested in a "real-world" test. Colour was slightly different, but I've noticed that between many Canon lenses (and other makes) so that's acceptable. Flare won't be a problem as I normally shoot with a matte box and flags, or I deliberately go for some "atmospheric flare".

What struck me about the f4 version was that it was sharp at f4 but at its best at f5, then good up to about f9, tailing off just slightly at f11. At f16. and above refraction takes over. I agree with Gary, with the low light ability of the 300 I think this is a useful lens. And now I've had more time to think about my mk 1 70--200, I'm not going to add any sharpening. Pixel peeping (which I hate to do) I think the feel of the image becomes gritty rather than sharper. Push it through the broadcast chain, or cinema chain, and I just can't imagine it being acceptable. So, at the moment I'll see how much use the lens gets with the 300 and make a decision later. If I do upgrade, it will be to the f4.But first I want to see how that Sigma goes.

Jesus, I'm turning into a measurebator.

I hear you about sharpening. It might look good when comparing two high-quality images side-by-side, but viewers don't do A-B comparisons. So unless an image is overly soft, nobody notices. And as you say, compression isn't kind to harsh images.

Probably the bigger differences between the lenses (than resolution/visual quality) is size, weight, and aperture. The size isn't much different: about 8"x3.5" for the f/2.8 and 7"x3" for the f/4. But the weight! 53 oz vs 27 oz. It's no big deal on your tripod, but could make a big difference for those hand holders and still shooters out there. I hadn't realized the difference was that big.

For aperture, the only thing you really lose is the ability to separate a messy background when it's not far behind the foreground. That and extreme low-light shooting. But with the sensitivity of the C300, it's not really about light. You could always rent a fast 85 or 135 for that one day where you need a long lens with candles in a cave.

Ok some more lens tests lined up. My dealer is getting the Sigma 50-100 1.8 in and the new Canon 24-105 mk2.

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for your (and everyone else's) thoughts so far. Don't forget to let us know what you think of these two lenses... and if you compare the still and cine versions of the 50-100, all the better!

Jim

and if you compare the still and cine versions of the 50-100, all the better!

They will look the same, except the cine will remove the use of DPAF.

Since they're using the same elements, I'm not interested so much in comparing looks. I'm more interested in how the different throws feel, breathing, and all that.

Hi Jim

I'm itching to test these two lenses but my dealer had a bereavement in his very close family so I won't be chasing him for lenses this week. I think next week would be within the bounds of sensitivity though.

I won't be testing the cine version of the Sigma because they seem to be in very short supply at the moment. Also, I have a phobia/refusal to zoom in while recording so I'm not interested in its parfocal abilities. I'll be looking at resolution, "look", colour, CA and build quality, and of course whether it needs any fiddly back focus adjustments. As I said, if it does, it's a no no for me.

Actually, I'm relaxed about these two because the 70-200 f4 Canon was a stellar performer so I'd be entirely happy to use the 17-55 and get the f4. Also, I still have a few Canon lenses sitting round, including the 24-70 2.8 and a 1.4 converter so I'm covered fro 17-200+.

Oh geez; sorry to hear about your dealer's loss.

Sounds like we're looking for and concerned about the same things with the Sigma... And while I'm curious about the real-world difference between the still and cine versions, I think I'd want the 50-100 as a variable prime...I do lots of interviews, and while I'll rarely zoom in during a shot, like everyone I'm particular about framing. And I don't always have time or interest in scooting the tripod around just a little bit... hence, lack of parfocal might not be a deal ender.

I could just get the Canon cine 17-120 T3 and be done with it...I've been on jobs with it and it's great...But there are about 25,000 things keeping me from buying that lens. :-)

Just a quick update for anyone interested. I had a bit of time last week and did some more careful testing of a couple of 70-200 L f4 lenses and a couple of 70-200 2.8L mk 2 lenses against my ancient mk 1 2.8 70-200. (I’m still waiting for the 50-100 Sigma and Canon 24-205 mk 2 to come in but I’m in no hurry.)

To cut it short, I bought one of the mk2 2.8’s. (I know: no apostrophe needed but it looks weird without and someone might wander, WTF is the 2.8s?!) It was significantly sharper than my mk1 and just had the edge on both f4’s. The extra stop of blur was also a big factor, although the thing weighs about double the f4. But overall it’s a brilliant lens and definitely recommended over the mk 1.

Me too! I bought my 70-200 2.8 IS II about six weeks ago and it has quickly become my favorite lens although lately I have been shooting reality show stuff handheld with the 17-55 2.8 IS which is also a great lens.

Agreed,Dan. In just a few days of use it's become my favourite lens. I'm surprised at how often it's wide enough, although I still use the 17-55 for more shots - another great lens. The only downside - and this is probably me more than most people - is trying to keep it steady when handholding, which is something I'm doing quite a bit of on my current project. The stabilisation works well but I've never been good at keeping cameras steady. At 70 maybe up to 100 I'm just about ok but after that it's tripod time. But overall, with the 17-55 and 70-200 being such great performers, I'm really wondering if I need to fill that missing 15mm

At 70 maybe up to 100 I'm just about ok but after that it's tripod time

Or monopod time! I'm finding I use monopods with cameras such as the C300 and RED much more than I do/did with shoulder mount cameras like Betacams, etc (especially with longer lenses). And much more mobile than a tripod.

Not a new discovery, but worth revisiting if you haven't done it in a while

Good point, Jim. I haven't used my mono for years but you've made me think - not easy to do these days!

I also remember the betacams, etc, even admit to filming on 16mm. To be honest, I don't miss any of them. It's interesting how you get to love using some gear and I really like my C300. Wouldn't go back if you paid me.

How come I haven't heard anyone mention the Sigma 24-105 as an alternative to the original Canon 24-105? It's supposed to be sharper, some say parfocal and F4 all the way through...

I really like the 24-105 for events, where one moment you're shooting someone on stage and the next your're doing an interview at the bar...

I can imagine using the 17-55 for interviews but who actually changes lenses when running around? And how would you get those close up shots of people laughing or drinking when the longest you have is 55mm?

Good point, Jim. I haven't used my mono for years but you've made me think - not easy to do these days!

I also remember the betacams, etc, even admit to filming on 16mm. To be honest, I don't miss any of them. It's interesting how you get to love using some gear and I really like my C300. Wouldn't go back if you paid me.

Also keep in mind that monopods have improved significantly over the past few years. They're lighter, sturdier, easier to deploy and can be broken down and used as a hi-hat etc..

A quick update on my lens selection saga: I did a quick test, very quick, of the new 24-105 Canon and I don't know whether I had a bum copy but I really wasn't impressed. I was so unimpressed that I have just had my trusty old Canon 24-70 2.8 L (mk1) repaired and will give that a try. It always felt pin sharp on my Canon 5D2 but then so did my 70-200 2.8 mk 1 and that was significantly out performed by my new mk2.

My 16-35 2.8 L mk1 (I know the mk 3 is a lot better) also felt great on the still camera but again is outperformed by the apparently lesser, non L 17-55 2.8. I find it interesting how lenses that are clearly great performers on a still camera just don't do so well on the C300. I look for sharpness, of course, but also bokeh, colour, contrast and general feel, which is obviously a personal thing so YMMV. I can tolerate a slight lack of sharpness if everything else feels good.

I'l post an update for anyone interested on how I rate the 24-70.