C100 mark ii or C300?

[Mike Butir]

very impressive results, i can only imagine how that would look with the c100 mark ii!

[Mike Butir]

I believe at this point it is best to stick with the c100 mark ii. Down the road an investment of a ninja will complete an outstanding filmmaking package. However, as i wrap up this discussion, i need a recommendation for which lens to buy. I would really hate to buy such a nice camera and be cheap when it comes to which lens to buy:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html
Rokinon 24mm T1.5 Cine http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1078639-REG/rokinon_ds24m_c_ds_24mm_t1_5_cine.html

These are the three that i have chosen, i really am drawn to the canon, but it is stretching my budget...

What are your guys thoughts?

[Gary Huff]

The above list is incomplete without knowing what lenses you have already.

[Mike Butir]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

The above list is incomplete without knowing what lenses you have already.

This is my first cinema camera. I do not own any previous lenses. I am upgrading from the sony nx5u, which is a broadcast style camera with a fixed lens.

[Gary Huff]

Then the answer is none of the above. You need the 24-105 f/4.

[Mike Butir]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Then the answer is none of the above. You need the 24-105 f/4.

why do you recommend that over the 16-35mm f/2.8L? Better in lower light and wider.

[Markus Nord]

Mike, 16-35mm is a superwide to wide angle lens, if that the only thing you film, that's fine. But I do imagine that you film in the range of 50 (normal) -100mm (tele) too. If you don't own any lenses before the 24-105mm is a over all good lens. Sure you are right the 16-35 is a faster lens, but that is not everything, you need to reach your object too.
The lenses I got is zoom 24-70 is, 70-200, 120-300 is and non zoom 20, 35 is, 100 is macro. Most of them is F2.8 but that's because I spent a lot of money on lenses...
The 24-105 is a very good start if you don't own any lenses, it goes from wide to tele in one lens and F4 is fast enough for the C100mkII.

[Mike Butir]

Originally Posted by Markus Nord

Mike, 16-35mm is a superwide to wide angle lens, if that the only thing you film, that's fine. But I do imagine that you film in the range of 50 (normal) -100mm (tele) too. If you don't own any lenses before the 24-105mm is a over all good lens. Sure you are right the 16-35 is a faster lens, but that is not everything, you need to reach your object too.
The lenses I got is zoom 24-70 is, 70-200, 120-300 is and non zoom 20, 35 is, 100 is macro. Most of them is F2.8 but that's because I spent a lot of money on lenses...
The 24-105 is a very good start if you don't own any lenses, it goes from wide to tele in one lens and F4 is fast enough for the C100mkII.

Looking over everything, the 24-105mm looks like my best option. In the end it turns out to be a cheaper package, as B&H bundles that lens with the c100mark ii. I am saving an additional $500 buying it in the bundle. To me, that is a no brainier!

I guess I was a bit hesitant with that lens because I have used it on a 5D and 7D and I was not too impressed with its low light ability. However, the c100 is much better in low light at higher ISO levels. I think that I have a solid starter package!

[Gary Huff]

If you end up needing a wider/faster zoom, I'd next go with the 17-55 f/2.8, but if you can only afford one lens at the moment, it's absolutely the 24-105, and nicely bundled as a kit too.

[Michael Galvan]

I also heartily recommend the EF-S 17-55 f2/.8 IS. It is really fantastic on this camera... great starting wide to mid-telephoto, constant 2.8, Image Stabilization, and great optics.

The 24-105 does give you much better telephoto at the cost of 1 stop lower. Picking depends on how you shoot.

[Ade Towell]

The Canon 18-135 stm is a good cheaper and lighter alternative 'run around lens' to the full frame 24-105. It's significantly wider, the dual pixel af works much quicker and is silent.
the f4 of the 24-105m is actually closer to f5 apparently, and unless you have it set to f4 the aperture ramps through the zoom, Set the 18-135 to 5.6 and it stays that way from 18 to 135. Is not quite as solidly built as the 24-105 and the manual focus is fly by wire but has comparable sharpness and is a great do it all lens when you're in a hurry

[Mike Butir]

I see myself doing a lot of work in low light. However, if the 24-105 f4 will still hold up in low light with the c100's ability to maintain a clean image i will feel comfortable with this route. Also, it is hard to beat when the lens comes bundled with the c100 for half the cost it would originally be. As a beginner lens, it would be nice to cover a wide range of focal lengths; making this a versatile lens. But again, my only concern is low light. If that is not going to be much of an issue, then i will stick to this bundle.

[Seth Bloombaum]

If 24mm on a crop sensor is wide enough, and an f4 aperture is wide enough, it's a very versatile lens, and long enough to pick up closeups at good working distances.

For me on a crop sensor it doesn't work as a primary lens because I frequently have to get a wider angle to cover a room, need to get that 16-18mm to get the wides. But I do sacrifice those closeups...

It's all a compromise, just a matter of finding out what compromise works best for most of *your* shooting.

I'm a big fan of the EF-S 17-55mm, but would probably grab a 24-105mm too if I were buying a new C100 or MkII. It's a great lens for the bundled price, but do think about how wide you need to get!

[Mark Dobson]

It's worth noting that there is also a new Full Frame EF 24-105 mm STM lens 3.5-5.6 IS. This lens has picked up impressive reviews and the autofocus is both quiet and very quick. It is also lighter than the red banded F4 version.

One interesting thing about this lens is that it was used in the making of the new C300 Mark 2 promotional film 'Trick Shot'. It can be seen on several occasions in the 'Making of' movie that has been also released.

Over the last 2 years Canon have released a fair few EFS STM lenses and they are all really suitable for Cinema Eos Cameras.

Originally Posted by Ade Towell

The Canon 18-135 stm is a good cheaper and lighter alternative 'run around lens' to the full frame 24-105. It's significantly wider, the dual pixel af works much quicker and is silent.
the f4 of the 24-105m is actually closer to f5 apparently, and unless you have it set to f4 the aperture ramps through the zoom, Set the 18-135 to 5.6 and it stays that way from 18 to 135. Is not quite as solidly built as the 24-105 and the manual focus is fly by wire but has comparable sharpness and is a great do it all lens when you're in a hurry

I've been using this lens successfully for the last 2 years or so and it's great for covering events where you need the zoom factor and to also be able to snap back into a wide shot without changing lenses.

Originally Posted by Michael Galvan

I also heartily recommend the EF-S 17-55 f2/.8 IS. It is really fantastic on this camera... great starting wide to mid-telephoto, constant 2.8, Image Stabilization, and great optics.

Yes this is a great lens producing really tasty images but it is also pretty heavy. I've noticed it has superb image stabilisation, again really useful when you just can't , for whatever reason, use a tripod. Great for interviews where you want to change the framing between questions.

My recommendation for anyone starting to build up a set of lenses is to develop a relationship with a good local camera snap and try a load out. And don't feel you have to use Canon 'L' lenses, they were not specifically designed for the far lower definition of video work and there are a lot of other very interesting lenses out there.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

There are people that will tell you that you'll get "hired more" if you have a C300. That really depends on who's doing the hiring. I've never had it come up.

I'll step in and be the guy who says "buy the C300, you'll get hired more." :)

But seriously, if you're working as an indie videographer, there's a pretty good chance you'll get hired more. How much more depends on your market, but given that both cameras cost nearly the same, I'd take the more more likely to get me more work.