c100 mark ii lenses

[Steve Bleasdale]

Got a second c100 mark ii, already have the canon 17-55 2.8 is and 70-200 2.8 os, but could do with a all in one lens to save changing lens and the facial tracking sometimes in stm mode works well i believe with the c100 ii. The only trouble is the 18-135 is not constant at 3/5 to 5/6 stm and the 24-105 stm same. Any other stm lenses that are good? If there is only these two stm lenses which one is best? Steve

[Seth Bloombaum]

I’ve not yet had the opportunity to try out the newer 24-105mm STM, but have used the non-STM f/4. I have the 17-55 and 18-135STM.

What I’ve noticed *for the things I shoot* is that for an all-around lens on Super35 I need to get to 17 or 18mm to get the wide interior shots. I love the 17-55, and, f/2.8 is great on it, but, it gets just a little short when I want to pick up a shot tighter than a head and shoulders.

Generally, I find 24-105 a great range for shooting interviews. Not real wide, (but I’ll be going to b-roll for establishing shots), but gets wide enough for MS, and tight enough for ECU at typical working distances.

But for interviews I’m typically choosing between the 17-55 and the 18-135 that I own. The 18-135 is coming out more and more, the DPAF doesn’t ever hunt for focus with it, I’ll isolate the subject with light instead of shallow DoF, and I can get as tight as I want. B-roll is about 50/50 between those, depending on available light, with occasional use of a Tokina 11-16mm for ultrawide looks (love it!).

But that’s me. My work tends towards lit interviews and available light b-roll. You do need to think hard about what *you’re* shooting!

PS. There’s a cam setting to restrict the top end of the aperture range... making either STM into a constant (if slow) lens.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Cheers Seth that is a big help, ye your right the 17-55 is great but to short then the 70-200 is to heavy so i may plump for this 18-135 and i can cover the lot. The 3/5 to 5/6 is not my look for weddings but should be ok and the low light performance is good on the c100 so i can go up to 12,000 iso and still brilliant. cheers

[Ben Moore]

I have the 18-135 and use it on the c100 mark ii a lot. I think its a great looking lens for the money. I just set it to 5.6 that way its constant and just adjust gain as need. The focal range is very useful in a lot of situations depending on what type of work your doing.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Cheers Ben

[Dan Brockett]

I have the last generation 18-135 STM IS (the one without the NANO USM). It's not a terrible lens, but it's not that good either. I have used it for stills as well as video, and of course, with stills, it's easier to evaluate sharpness. It's not a very sharp lens, fine for 1080 video, passable for 4K, but the stills from it kind of suck.

Build quality is not that great either and the worse part is that because it is focus by wire, anytime you zoom the lens, it takes like an extra second for the focus to catch up with the focal length so the lens doesn't hold focus anywhere in the zoom range, there is a focus lag so no crash zooms, slow pull ins or pull outs, they look awful. Not sure if Canon fixed this on the new NANO USM version? Unfortunately I have shot footage where I intended the editor to use the footage only once I had zoomed in or out and the focus had caught up. Sadly, I have shots lots of broadcast stuff for some TV specials where Fox put those zoom shots on the air, focus lag and all, which looked bad but it was BTS footage for a TV show so I guess it didn't bother them that much.

Making it a constant F5.6 lens to avoid the iris ramping is workable but for interiors, F5.6 is SLOW. Probably going to buy the Canon CNE 18-80 T4.4 to replace this lens but of course, the CNE costs a lot more, but it is a MUCH better lens too. We all need 17-18mm to short tele as a workhorse lens and right now, Canon doesn't have the great solution. I too have the 17-55 2.8 IS and it works, but the focal length is too short on the tele end and the manual zoom is really stiff and unusable for zooms, same issue, you can use it as a variable prime but the zooms look terrible, unlike the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which actually has pretty nice manual zoom ability, if you are careful.

Plenty of us would pay $2,500.00 for a 17-80 2.8 IS stills lens built with the same quality, glass and feel as the 70-200 2.8 IS II but Canon seems loath to produce such a lens. That leads me back to the CNE 18-80 T4.4 and spending over $5k. Ughh, give us a leg up Canon!

[Steve Bleasdale]

Dan your right, i am sticking with the 17-55 and going to switch over onto the 70-200 when i need the reach in ceremony and speeches. cheers

[Dan Brockett]

Those two are my workhorse lenses, both are decent operationally and have excellent pictures but on the 17-55 2.8 IS, watch the corner vignetting from the IS, it seems to vary from copy to copy and I have seen some really bad samples. Most of it is visible when shooting DCI 4K and 2K on the C200 because of the wider aspect ratio but you won't have that issue on the C100 MKII obviously. The bad samples I've seen, when the images are cropped to 16:9 UHD, most of the it goes away.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Cheers Dan i picked up a bargain new 18-135 nano usm is latest one for £200 pound very cheap. Tested it and superb and can use the facial tracking. So in the prep room will use the 17-55 2.8 then outside later on 18-135 with ceremony and 70-200 2.8 closeup speeches and close for first dance. cheers man

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Steve Bleasdale

Cheers Dan i picked up a bargain new 18-135 nano usm is latest one for £200 pound very cheap. Tested it and superb and can use the facial tracking. So in the prep room will use the 17-55 2.8 then outside later on 18-135 with ceremony and 70-200 2.8 closeup speeches and close for first dance. cheers man

Good luck Steve, hope that works out for you. Weddings are really difficult to shoot well, I admire anyone who can do it. I shoot documentaries largely and I think weddings are sometimes more difficult. The schedules are insane, emotions run high and expectations are often unrealistic.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Cheers Dan thanks, after 12 years filming weddings sometimes i go into auto pilot but excited this year with great venues and new equipment. Loving the c100 ii ... Cheers

[Steve Bleasdale]

So quite a lot of weddings with the 6ds and c100s and the new 18-135 nano great lens but it just gives a slight magenta colour which is driving me nuts, i shift the colour in the white balance which it allows me to do but i think its just the lens, the 17-55 2.8 is the best for c100, colours accurate but you cannot track the bride down the aisle as there is no tracking because its an old lens. Thank god the 6d tracks. How can you penalise a brilliant camera like the c100 mark ii with the lenses it uses. Even my last wedding on the speeches, i have the 70-200 on the c100 dad speaks he moves a lot, so because canon has penalised the camera with a stupid little box in the middle of the screen for DAF and no face track on that lens, the slightest movement out the box i am hosed so i resort to the 80d and the 6diis again.... Thanks for a 500 pound camera, c100 ii £3500 rant over

[Chris Hurd]

Canon really needs to update the 17-55 f/2.8, make it STM with improved IS and it'd be the new EF-S winner.

[Steve Bleasdale]

Correct Chris

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Canon really needs to update the 17-55 f/2.8, make it STM with improved IS and it'd be the new EF-S winner.

Couldn't agree more.