EF Lenses - which gap?

[Ben Giles]

Hi All.

Sorry for the cryptic title. It's an old question - but I'm interested to hear the latest views.

I've bought a 5Diii and 24-105, which I plan to use alongside a C100 (or 200 if it materialises next week and Canon can get it to me in the not too distant future.) I'm speccing a zoom lens set to work well both the FF 5Diii and the crop C camera, both for stills and video. I'm not bothering with fixed primes at this stage, as I need maximum flexibility.

At the wide end, I'm looking at a gap - either below 16mm if I go for the Canon 16-35 or between 16 and 24mm if I go for the Tokina 11-16.

Bearing in mind the Tokina will vignette at anything under 16mm or so on the 5D (making it essentially a 16mm prime), my inclination is to go for the 16-35 as it fills the wider gap above. Or do you think I'd miss the wider coverage of the Tokina on the C camera (ie, is 16mm wide enough on a C100/300 most of the time in your experience?)

I'd rather not buy both lenses as I'm guessing one will stay in the bag most of the time. The question is - which one?

Also, various people have said that they have gone for 70-200 f4IS, rather than the 2.8. Anyone regretted that decision or, conversely, feeling confident that they made the right choice for the lighter, but slower, lens?

We can afford the more expensive 70-200 lens, but my concern is the weight of the 2.8. Or does it hang quite happily off the cinema cameras (or vice versa - will the C camera happily hang off the lens?)

Thanks for any thoughts.

Ben.

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Ben Giles

Anyone regretted that decision or, conversely, feeling confident that they made the right choice for the lighter, but slower, lens?

Still very, very happy with my 70-200 f4 choice.

Had a decidedly manual 80-200 2.8, big and heavy, needed support, absolute waste of time on anything but the sturdiest tripod, 'wafer thin' DoF scary, especially if riding focus as no IS. Tried the Canon 80-200 2.8 IS - still too heavy for hand-held. I can hand-hold the 70-200 if necessary, and fit it into a pocket, tripling its usefulness over the 80-200 2.8.

I hear the 16-35mm is an awesome lens (colleague has one). I'm not savvy with the full-frame camp, but even though its twice the price of the Tokina, you're getting a useful range for both the C100 and the 5D. But I love the 11mm end of the Tokina on the C100 and wouldn't be without this lens for video.

[Seth Bloombaum]

I've shot the 16-35mm on a 5d and it is an awesome lens - a *very* nice wide-angle zoom, that covers a great range on full-frame.

The crop factor on a C100 means that same lens will show a full-frame equivalent of 28mm. Don't know if you're hip to 35mm-equivalent and crop factor, but it's the only way for me to understand how to spec lenses for crop-sensor cameras.

I laid out which focal lengths I find most useful in this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...-canon-7d.html

Search is your friend, there's really been quite a bit written on this.

But really, it depends what you're shooting. I love the Tokina 11-16mm on a crop-sensor camera, but, I'm always shooting people, usually indoors. My primary lens on a crop canon is the 17-55mm.

One question is if you'll be using the 5d and c100 on the same shoots? You'll need more glass...

Are there rentals available in your area?

[Evan Bourcier]

My biggest question is what are you shooting? I think it's easy to get overly obsessed with "covering the range" when in fact it should be very rare that you need EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE focal length covered. I've used the 16-35, I thought it was great, but the only time I ever went that wide was when on a steadicam or timelapse slider. (granted it was full frame), I think if you need really wide that should be plenty wide personally, but I dont know what you're shooting. The f4 IS is a nice lens, and a heck of a lot lighter than the 2.8, and I just rent both as needed. Have you considered renting the options and getting a feel yourself?

[Josh Dahlberg]

I second what Matt says on the 70-200 f4. I sold my 2.8 and went for the f4: money wasn't an issue, I prefer the weight / size / handling with the f4 - for me the 2.8 is too cumbersome / front heavy with the C300 on a tripod. Also, at the long end f4 is a safer bet for keeping subjects in focus in interview situations, and it's plenty bright enough with the sensitivity in these cameras.

When I want super-tight DOF I use a prime.

[Ben Giles]

Thanks for the replies so far.

Yes, it would be nice to find the time to properly evaluate the lenses (although I've got 18 films to deliver and a 350 mile house/office move to get my head around over the next couple of months!)

Regarding covering the whole range, I'm not overly concerned about covering every usable focal length per se - just interested to hear if anyone else is using one lens set across both a C100/300 crop and FF sensor and how they reconcile the wide end of things.

The easy answer is to just buy both lenses and know I'm adequately covered for both sensor sizes - but it's possible somebody out there has had the same issue and it would be good to hear how it's panning out for them and if they've found a "sweet spot."

Oh, and what are we shooting? Everything and anything...:-) At the moment, a lot of talking heads indoors with the latest raft of commissions - but I've got a shoot in 2 weeks time which will include a lot of external GVs and actuality.

Cheers,

Ben.

[Mark Dobson]

Originally Posted by Ben Giles

Hi All.

At the wide end, I'm looking at a gap - either below 16mm if I go for the Canon 16-35 or between 16 and 24mm if I go for the Tokina 11-16.

Also, various people have said that they have gone for 70-200 f4IS, rather than the 2.8. Anyone regretted that decision or, conversely, feeling confident that they made the right choice for the lighter, but slower, lens?

Ben.

Hi Ben - if you follow Matt and Josh's advice you'll save yourself a thousand pounds. Get the Canon EF 70-200 mm F4L IS USM.

I use the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM with my C300 and the images are gorgeous.

By the way you might remember me from all those years ago ( 1980's?) when I worked as a freelance Producer/Director at Martin Bird Productions. I've not seen Alastair for a while but am still in contact with Mark J.

Mark

[Matt Davis]

I'm only posting this because of the lens choice:

80% shot with the 24-105 (now aka 'the kit lens' yay!)
10% shot with the 17-55
5% shot with the Tok 11-16
5% shot with the 70-200

All C100 using WDR:

Cisco Live 2013 - Delegate v1 on Vimeo

The take-away from this, for us here, is 'the 24-105 does an awful lot' (at f4) and 'you're not missing much at f4 with the 70-200'. The film contains a lot (!) of hand-held 'Run & Gun', and IIRC, all the 70-200 shots are hand held too. IS is really good for the C100.

[Mark Dobson]

Which lens did you do the interviews with Matt? By the way great looking piece.

[Ben Giles]

Thanks Matt - some nice stuff there.

I do love what can be done with 24-105. We did a couple of BBC iPlayer films recently, exclusively with that lens. I hear what you're saying about the 70-200 f4. I think I need to go and handle the 2 different 70-200s and get a feel for them. I know the 2.8 quite well, but I have never picked up the f4.

What were you using as a stabiliser/steadicam, by the way?

Mark - wow, good to hear from you. Of course I remember you - we also played together with Pete and Lou in the finest blues scratch band south of Uckfield (ahem...) The last time I saw you was 1991 and they were dancing on the tables. Blimey.

Do ping me a PM with your number - it would be lovely to catch up.

Ben.

[Matt Davis]

Aww, thanks, Mark & Ben! :-)

Gerd (guy looks to our right) was interviewed on the 17-55 2.8 at around 50 - the others were on the 24-105 (with a bit of distance to get the look of the background right).

I had a lightweight spider dolly from Miller on my Solo legs - with an EX1, one can get remarkable shots but with the IS on the C100, it was struggling a lot. Next time, I'll do all my dolly shots with my EX1 with its image stabilisation. The Sony Z1 was the absolute king of these shots, the EX1 wasn't half bad either. The FS100 with its kit lens just didn't work, but I was impressed (initially) with the IS on the Canon lenses, but sadly in post it really wasn't as good as I hoped.

I've looked into using a Steadicam or other stabilizer, but with our shooting schedule it adds one layer of complication too far. Sigh.

But I was amazed at just how much I used the 24-105. I travelled around the venue with that, the 70-200 and either the Tokina or the 17-55 in pockets of a ScotteVest. The 70-200 was an emergency swap-out with the 80-200 2.8, and it was astounding. I have no interest in the 80-200 any more. The lens you use is the one you have with you, and because it was in the pocket, I got some great shots when I had time to switch lenses. But when I didn't have time, I was on that 24-105.

Having said all that, I'm interested in trying the 28-300 and 18-200 (two ends of the price spectrum but both most definitely IS). The latter is especially intesting to me as it matches the FS100 kit lens which was a great 'get out of poo free' lens. The sort of thing you want when you jump in a car to follow something and you have no idea where you're going.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Great film Matt.

And another vote for the Canon 70-200 F4 IS over the big and heavy F2.8 option on a C series cam if you shoot a lot hand held. Your arms, as well as your bank manager, will appreciate that choice.

[Mark Dobson]

Matt,

I've used the 17-55 a lot for interviews - allows the possibility to reframe between questions and at 50mm looks a lot like a prime. If one is conducting the interviews as well its helpful to have lens you can zoom out on.

But the point you make about having time to change lenses, certainly in a live situation, is an important one and comes back to Bens original question about which lens to choose and despite not having a fixed aperture the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS produces some really crisp images and is very good value for money. It has an an equivalent full format range of 29-216mm.

Another advantage of that this lens offer is the STM AF which is useless on the C300 at the moment but should work really well with the C100. People have talked about the push button one shot AF being quite slow on the C100 but a STM lens might make that more snappy.

But a real question is how come Cisco only got half of Status Quo? And the half that doesn't sing.

[Matt Davis]

Thanks Mark for dragging us back on topic! LOL, that was a good evening, btw.

Unlike photography, it's not exactly practical to be running around with two cameras and lens swaps are part of the game, so in lens choice for R&G, it's less about trying to cover every millimeter, and more about useful ranges for a sequence, which means quite a bit of overlap sometimes (e.g. 24-105 and 17-55, and now the 16-35 to consider.

Of course, I'm addicted to the Tokina, and most of the time I'm looking for portraits and details, so the 24-105 has been kind. For the above video kind of work, it was great to have the 'loose standard' and the 'long portrait' always available.

Sigh - we all become lens junkies. Now I'm beginning to work out how to slip the 16-35 into the collection, but really should look at a SuperZoom first (now that the basics are covered).

[Pat Reddy]

Mark, thanks for the feedback on the EFS 18-135 IS STM lens. I am seriously considering this lens. The IS is supposed to be more effective than the IS on the 24-105 F4 IS, and STM will allow for continuous auto-focus with some future firmware update. My 40 mm STM lens focuses pretty quickly with the push AF.