best lenses for C300 mk 2

Jim Feeley · October 21st, 2016, 11:43 AM

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. :-)

Stewart Hemley · November 10th, 2016, 10:02 AM

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.

Dan Brockett · November 10th, 2016, 07:37 PM

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.

Stewart Hemley · November 11th, 2016, 02:21 AM

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

Jim Feeley · November 11th, 2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart Hemley

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

Stewart Hemley · November 12th, 2016, 04:35 AM

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.

Jeroen Wolf · December 19th, 2016, 10:22 AM

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?

Chuck Spaulding · December 23rd, 2016, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart Hemley

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..

Stewart Hemley · February 2nd, 2017, 04:48 AM

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.

October 21st, 2016, 11:43 AM	#31
Jim Feeley Supports LPFM Radio Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern California USA Posts: 168	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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. :-)

November 10th, 2016, 10:02 AM	#32
Stewart Hemley Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK and Japan Posts: 68	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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.

November 10th, 2016, 07:37 PM	#33
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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.

November 11th, 2016, 02:21 AM	#34
Stewart Hemley Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK and Japan Posts: 68	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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

November 12th, 2016, 04:35 AM	#36
Stewart Hemley Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK and Japan Posts: 68	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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.

December 19th, 2016, 10:22 AM	#37
Jeroen Wolf Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 355	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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? __________________ www.imaginevideo.nl Just published the second of my viral mini-doc series '100' https://youtu.be/ZqHFBrV-oOc

February 2nd, 2017, 04:48 AM	#39
Stewart Hemley Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK and Japan Posts: 68	Re: best lenses for C300 mk 2 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.