Any news on the Canon CN-E 18-80mm?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

The difference between f4 and 2.8 in a zoom in terms of the size of the elements isn't that huge. Canon certainly makes a variety of still zooms in 2.8 that are compact. Sure there would be an increase in weight, but in a short zoom like this, it's not going to be substantial. See the 17-55 or the 24-70L 2.8 lenses for relative diameter and weight.

You are comparing to a 17-55 with a zoom range of 24mm less, and a 24-70 that is 16mm less of a range and has no. Plus, neither are parafocal, and this includes a motorized zoom component even sans rocker switch. Not at all close to informing you on what a 2.8mm

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

You are comparing to a 17-55 with a zoom range of 24mm less, and a 24-70 that is 16mm less of a range and has no. Plus, neither are parafocal, and this includes a motorized zoom component even sans rocker switch. Not at all close to informing you on what a 2.8mm

Hi Gary,

I don't think you're seeing my point. The 18-80 is already bigger than both of the lenses I suggested. The primary size difference between a 2.8 and 4 lens of similar focal lengths is the diameter based on the size of the front element, The front element of the 24-70 2.8 isn't that big and would only be slightly larger on an 80mm lens. So compared to the existing 18-80, a 2.8 version would probably only grow marginally. Yes it would be heavier, bigger, but not by a large amount.

I don't think size/weight is the reason canon made this a t/4.4. Happy to disagree on this.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

The primary size difference between a 2.8 and 4 lens of similar focal lengths is the diameter based on the size of the front element

So what you are saying is that the difference between Canon's 70-200 f/4 and their 70-200 f/2.8 is almost negligible? Or wouldn't make the difference concerning size/weight in contemplating a purchase between the two?

[Barry Goyette]

Not saying that at all.

At 200mm, the size of a lens growing from f4 to f2.8 IS generally substantial. At 80mm it is much less. The diameter of the 2.8 24-70 is only a few mm greater than the f4 version, (it does pick up some weight, but that appears to be due to design/build issues (number of elements, IS, and length).

In fact many size/weight differences are design related, not specific to speed. Compare the old Canon 35mm 1.4 versus the new 35mm 1.4 II. Same specs in terms of speed, but the new lens is longer and heavier by a substantial amount. The CN-E primes are sized not due to any requirements of speed, but rather to match each other and other manufactures lenses for fitting various support gear.

The 18-80 is an extremely light lens for it's size. If it weighed a pound, or even two more, it would still be a couple pounds shy of canon's smallest "real" cine zoom. If it was an f 2.8 and 5200 clams, I doubt we'd have any discussion at all that it's too heavy.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

The 18-80 is an extremely light lens for it's size. If it weighed a pound, or even two more, it would still be a couple pounds shy of canon's smallest "real" cine zoom. If it was an f 2.8 and 5200 clams, I doubt we'd have any discussion at all that it's too heavy.

It would be 5.3lbs and a 1/2" thicker all around. That's not insignificant.

[Mark Dobson]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

Hi Gary,

I don't think you're seeing my point. The 18-80 is already bigger than both of the lenses I suggested. The primary size difference between a 2.8 and 4 lens of similar focal lengths is the diameter based on the size of the front element, The front element of the 24-70 2.8 isn't that big and would only be slightly larger on an 80mm lens. So compared to the existing 18-80, a 2.8 version would probably only grow marginally. Yes it would be heavier, bigger, but not by a large amount.

I don't think size/weight is the reason canon made this a t/4.4. Happy to disagree on this.

I'm not really technically qualified to join in on this discussion of why Canon ended up with t4.4 but I do know they play their cards pretty close to their chest all the time for some strange reason. When they announced the 18-80 they said this lens was the first of a series within this category and maybe the other lenses they are developing will have higher specifications.

I'm still waiting to see some real world examples of this lens working but a useful comparison for me in terms of the weight and dimensions is putting my Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 on my C300mk2 - at 1,380 kg it is slightly heavier than the 18-80 which with its servo grip weighs 1.2 kg. The length of the 100-400 is also very similar when unextended.

This all adds up to quite a lot of weight sitting up on the shoulder on my Zacuto rig. I need to go to a showroom to try this lens out and see if it suits me.

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

It would be 5.3lbs and a 1/2" thicker all around. That's not insignificant.

Had no idea you worked in lens development at Canon, Gary. I thought canon employees were not allowed to comment here. :-)

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

Had no idea you worked in lens development at Canon, Gary. I thought canon employees were not allowed to comment here. :-)

One doesn't need to work at Canon to not make erroneous assumptions, like the assumption that going from f/4 to f/2.8 (or, in the Cine nomenclature, T4.4 to T3) only enlarges the front element. Or to ignore such past examples such as the 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8, or the even more telling Sony 24-70 f/4 vs f/2. 8 (0.90lbs for the former to over double the weight and 1/2" thicker). Or to bring up the 35mm f/1.4 I vs II, in which the latter is 0.40lbs heavier and 0.07" thicker as if that is somehow comparable.

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

One doesn't need to work at Canon to not make erroneous assumptions, like the assumption that going from f/4 to f/2.8 (or, in the Cine nomenclature, T4.4 to T3) only enlarges the front element. Or to ignore such past examples such as the 70-200 f/4 vs f/2.8, or the even more telling Sony 24-70 f/4 vs f/2. 8 (0.90lbs for the former to over double the weight and 1/2" thicker). Or to bring up the 35mm f/1.4 I vs II, in which the latter is 0.40lbs heavier and 0.07" thicker as if that is somehow comparable.

It's just that your measurements of the fictitious 18-80mm/2/8 seem so exact, and...umm...certain. You must have inside information. You must. :-)

And a wide angle prime gaining 25% of its weight and 20% of its length, having nothing to do with maximum aperture, is an accurate statement that design plays a big role in the size of lenses.

I'm going to exit on this. I certainly expect (and have said) that a 2.8 version of this lens would be heavier and larger. We agree on this. We disagree on how much it would grow, on how much heavier it would be, and how much that would matter. You don't know the answer, Gary, and certainly, neither do I. Both of us are speculating. To you, The difference is only 800 versus 1600 iso, which is certainly within the c300 markII's sweet spot. For others using this lens in true run and gun situations, say the interior of a catholic church, or a rural street at night. it might be the difference between ISO 6400 and 12,800, in which case, one might be wishing they had an extra stop in their lens. For the DP looking to use this lens to replace a raft of primes, that 2.8 fstop might be extremely valuable.

When I'm rigged up for handheld shoulder mount shooting my package weighs about 15 pounds, the addition of 1-2 pounds would have minimal effect. For someone who shoots stripped down to a lens and the EVF, 1-2 pounds would make a big difference in usability. For someone locking the camera down, it would have no effect. Canon is certainly capable of making lightweight SHORT zooms of a variety of configurations. I think it's distinctly possible that they could have made this lens a 2.8 or even a 3.5 with modest affect on the size and weight, but that lens would have competed too closely with their more profitable cine zooms. I believe they are experimenting with a midpoint. There is a lot of competition in the cine lens segment. We'll have to see how it all shakes out.

Have a great day.

[Jim Martin]

Lenses are in stock here at EVS.....$5700 with the grip. Give Elizabeth, Zach, Tommy of myself a ring and we'll get you covered!
818-552-4590

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

[Mark Dobson]

Now that this lens is available I'm just wondering what the best option for controlling the zoom together with the focus control is.

The ZSG-C10 servo grip appears to only have one additional button which presumably can be used to turn the autofocus on and off. However there is no joystick which means that there is no way of switching between selected faces using this grip.

But if I decide to use the grip that comes with the camera I understand that it is possible to control the zoom using the joystick - but that presumably mean assigning that function to the joystick which again would mean that there is no way of navigating between selected focus points of of moving the focus point around the screen.

Any thoughts on the best way of using the autofocus with this new lens?

[Dan Brockett]

For those interested, here is my article with my impressions of the lens. Unfortunately Canon couldn't loan it to me for more than a few days so I was not able to run extensive tests with focus charts and other technical testing but I was able to shoot one client project with it before I had to send it back. My impressions are it is pretty impressive lens for the size and money and an excellent solution for the handheld doc/event/reality shooter. Larry Thorpe has indicated that there will be others in this lens lineup coming soon.

Hands-On With Canon?s New Compact Servo 18-80mm T4.4 EF Lens - HDVideo Pro

[Mark Dobson]

Very well put together article Dan - thanks.

I've been searching for any new footage shot with this lens. For the amount of time it's been on the market you'd have thought there would quite a few clips to see but I've not found any recent real world examples.

So if anyone's got any Canon CN-E 18-80mm clips I'd love to see them.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Mark Dobson

Very well put together article Dan - thanks.

I've been searching for any new footage shot with this lens. For the amount of time it's been on the market you'd have thought there would quite a few clips to see but I've not found any recent real world examples.

So if anyone's got any Canon CN-E 18-80mm clips I'd love to see them.

Mark - I have the lens and it's quite stunning.

I had posted some BTS photos on my IG feed: https://www.instagram.com/p/BQVirzOB...-by=jonroemer_, https://www.instagram.com/p/BQRWwPIh...-by=jonroemer_.

I know it's not clips but I can't show clips from this project. I'm hoping to create some footage next week for a blog post.

The lens has a clarity and contrast that the regular L glass does not have.

You can get a sense of that in Brent Ramsey's, 18-80 vs EF 24-105 video here:

Canon lenes: Compact-Servo 18-80mm T4.4 EF vs EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM Comparison Tests_1920x1080 on Vimeo

I was also the DP on one of Canon's launch videos about the lens last year. So, I got a chance to see firsthand, early on, what the lens offers.

I think that Dan's article is great and very balanced. Some of his comments about using the lens' grip vs the camera's are spot on. What I would emphasize is that 18-80 footage really jumps out to me. Even on the C300 - tiny details off in the distance are so well drawn and clear.

The color difference vs L glass is like jumping up in bit-depth. The difference in clarity vs. L glass, as seen on the C300, is like getting a bit higher res footage.