pgre

Might be worth actually reaching out to one of their resellers, I have borrowed an XC10 for example for a charity project. ProAv in the UK were great about it and as a result I have bought various other kit from them since. Canon were, I believe, involved in this loan. I of course get what your saying but I suspect they don't feel the need at this point at least to engage directly.

Yes the 24-105 is supposed to be parfocal. And my quick testing just now seems to back this up... It's strange though as others have reported it isn't so milage may vary.   http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

  Hi..  yes it was obvious :) and I was going from zoom to wide of course since the DOF is going to be an issue.    I wasn't really doing any scientific test though as I was just doing a quick test.

Hi.. The 18-200 is supposed to be... but of course you may only get it to work when zooming in one direction. Mhttp://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/40131685 shows what I mean.   This link may also be useful though... as it shows some others.  http://www.fs700user.com/FS700user.com/Lenses.html   I'd quite like the Sony 16-50 F2.8 with the right adapter as it would also have AF on the FS100... but to be honest I am managing most of the time with the Canon Lenses I have and the Sony Kit lens.

Was on a shoot the other day and I'd say that the MKII of the 70-200 2.8 isn't.. as I was having to refocus slightly on zooming. It wasn't a massive issue but I should really test this in good light and with a sharp target that I can check focus on.

After using 5DMKIII, 7D's, 60Ds and now investing in an FS100 I guess it depends what you're doing with it. I have been doing more and more commercial projects and what we may see as missing features or poor quality video or various issues.. they don't really care.    Many customers I have worked with simply say shallow depth of field please... and thats the end of it.   It's always a fascinating debate though..

I love my FS100 for the Slow Mo.. although I'd love the FS700 if money was no object.

The 24-105 isn't..  Which is a shame as its my second most use lens. I actually use the 18-200 Sony lens most of the time recently... plus you get A/F if needed. (when they are Dance videos and your a one man band it tends to help sometimes).

The 17-40 from my quick test now is not too bad.. I do see a slight softening but it was a very quick test. I'll have to do more.

Hi.. I have the 24-105 and I don't think it is from my experience.. The 17-40 F4 seems to be..  The 70-200 2.8 non IS is but the IS doesn't appear to be from my testing :( sucks as I have that .. of course perhaps not the best lens if your looking for a wide shot though.   I have all the above lenses so will do more testing myself. I don't have the speedbooster though of course but I do have the normal metabones adapter on the FS100.     There seem to be a few others.. 16-35 for example and the Tokina 11-16. More info here. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4