C100 and Image Stabilization
 

I am enjoying my new C100 MKII so far... I can tell that I am really going to like this camera coming from the XF300. One thing I am trying to get used to is the IS on my Canon 18-135mm STM lens (my only lens so far) With the XF300 I could get decent slow moving slider type shots by just holding the camera and steadily and slowly leaning left and right while holding the camera... also forward and backward, overhead, etc. If I did a good job with the movement, I could throw on an image stabilizing filter in post to take out any minor shakes and it ended up looking comparable to a slider. With the C100 MKII it seems a little trickier. When I look through the viewfinder or LCD and attempt a move with the camera, it looks good to me, but looks considerably worse when I view it in FCP. Is the IS on the lenses only for helping steady a non-moving handheld shot? With the IS on it seems to be fighting movement... even if I am just following the action in a basketball game while handheld. Would it be better to turn off IS if I will be doing handheld movement and only turn it on to steady non-moving handheld shots? On the XF300 I always had IS on for any handheld work, and obviously off for tripod work. I will be purchasing a motorized gimbal rig at some point this year along with a slider... but until then, I need to master small, slow movements while going handheld. And of course it could just be that I need more practice with this new camera! Any advice appreciated.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

That is correct. I've found the image stabilization on canon glass to simply be for keeping an absolutely still image. The moment you create movement the IS is useless.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

Yes I have the same camera and lens and also noticed the same problem. I think as the Canon glass is mainly made for photography, the IS doesn't keep up with that of dedicated video cameras.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

How do you guys feel about the 18-135mm in general?

At the moment, I have the 17-55 2.8 on the camera most of the time ... but miss a longer reach. 24-105 4.0 is not wide enough for the majority of my shooting.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

I like the 18-135mm as a general run and gun lens when the light is good.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

I agree with Andrew. I have the 18-135 STM IS and while it is okay for video, shoot some well lit still portraits with it and you will see that it is not a very sharp lens. Fine for 1080 video but in stills, at least my copy has pretty unimpressive edge to edge sharpness. Not the best lens for interiors that aren't well lit. I am glad I have the lens but I don't use it for interviews and when Canon finally upgrades the 24-70 2.8 to STM IS, I will upgrade to it as my primary run and gun lens from the 18-135 STM IS.

17-55 2.8 looks better but it doesn't have enough tele extension for many shooters. The focal range on the 18-135 is just about perfect for an all purpose lens. Especially if you can get the package deal with a new camera (I got mine for $200.00 with the C100 body when it was on closeout last October) the 18-135 is a great value. Just wish that Canon made a higher end, faster version that was sharper, had the same focal length range and a 2.8 constant.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

After using the 18-135 STM lens, I have concluded that for $200 (with Camera Kit) it's not bad... but as mentioned, it's noticeably not as sharp as many other pricier Canon lenses and seems "muddy" to me at times. It usually leaves me wanting more. Again, for $200 it's great and I'm glad I have it, but I see now that I want to try out some more lenses. In addition to the 18-135, I have the Rokinon 85 mm prime. This is currently my interview lens. For my purposes, it's doing a great job and the price is unbelievable. I'm sure the Canon primes are better, but I doubt they are 5 or 6 times the price better. I plan to get the 35 and 50mm too.

Re: C100 and Image Stabilization
 

The new 50mm/1.8 STM from Canon sounds a good idea to me (and the pricier 35mm/2 IS)

The problem is in the zoom lenses. I think that the 17-55/2.8 IS EF-S is much better than the 18-135, but will leave you unsatisfied at the tele range.

N.F.