Jump to content

Best IS lenses for C100?


Recommended Posts

Hi,

which lenses are considered for best IS, AF and face recognation?

While I have a ton of vintage, but still very nice AIS Nikkors my most used lens for handheld doc's last year was ... the plastic 18-55, mainly between 18-35 mm. Would love to have 16 mm on the short end. Optically not great, I know, but I really like the auto-everything features as it allows me to concentrate fully on the action instead of technical stuff - everything sharp (enough) and exposed pretty  ok'ish, even if the lighting changes dramatically during the take, what a gift.

So, in short, IS is a must have. Will have to test some candidates, but the list is quite short, mainly the well known STM zooms.

17-50/2.8, 16-35/4 or of course 18-135 STM.

Did I miss someone?

Are Tamron or Tokina etc. serious contenders for working and reliable face recognation (which becomes really important for me)?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware it's only the Canon STMs that support face recognition. I have the 17-55 2.8 (which I'm assuming is the one you mean above) and the AF works great (if a little noisy) and the IS is a treat - but no face AF. I also have both the 18-135 and 55-250 STMs and they work perfectly and near-silently. They're reasonable lenses optically, with all the usual provisos, if a little bland; but if you're looking for something to throw on the camera and forget about while it does the work for you they're hard to gainsay. Obviously not the fastest glass out there, but the C100's (well the mk ii anyway, I haven't used the mk i) low-light performance means that upping your ISO a couple of clicks is a relatively pain-free experience in all but the lowest-light situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For IS and silent focus we are stuck with the STM line, but I have been surprised how silent is the 28mm 1.8 USM, and is totally ok for what I need, the 17-55 2.8 looks great, but not sure if there is an impact in the DPAF, noise, etc.....others USM are more limited to use, for example the 50mm 1.4 can not be used with DPAF, it sounds like a pruner!!!!

@Tim Sewell could you please give us more light about the 17-55?, is it really noise or just a little?, how DPAF works on it?, compared to the 18-55 STM, which one will you use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @hijodeibn - DPAF and IS work great on the 17-55 2.8 but the noise is sufficient to register with the onboard microphones (both the scratch one and the handle ones - I haven't tried it yet with a camera-mounted shotgun) - in fact even the iris changes would be too loud, I think, for critical work. I don't have the 18-55 STM, just the 18-135 and the 55-250. DPAF may be slightly faster on these lenses (and is noticeably excellent on the longer zoom) and face recognition is also very good. They are near-silent in operation. In summation, if image quality/low-light was my priority and I was recording dual system or MOS I would opt for the 17-55 2.8 every time; otherwise it would be the STMs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 18-135 NANO is the way to go.  Much smoother AF than with a STM. SAme optics. Also the ability to add a power zoom module.  BTW I am selling one since our nonprofit is switching to GH5s.  Although it is not the best optically, it is good enough and the AF difference is astounding.  Absolutely accurate AF following with no hunting.  It is the ONLY lens to take full advantage of the dual pixel AF.  I ended up using it in preference to any other zoom since focusing was dead on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Philip Lipetz said:
13 minutes ago, Philip Lipetz said:

The 18-135 NANO is the way to go.  Much smoother AF than with a STM. SAme optics. Also the ability to add a power zoom module.  BTW I am selling one since our nonprofit is switching to GH5s.  Although it is not the best optically, it is good enough and the AF difference is astounding.  Absolutely accurate AF following with no hunting.  It is the ONLY lens to take full advantage of the dual pixel AF.  I ended up using it in preference to any other zoom since focusing was dead on.

Sounds good, what about the noise?, is it close to STM lenses?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

The micro contrast of better glas has much, much more pleasure for the eye than the aseptic plastic consumer zooms. In a low sharpness enviroment like video I preferre the look of Zeiss, some of the elder Nikkors and of course Canon's Ls. OTH, it does not help if you are out of focus, suffers shaking and exposure up and down, LOL

list of lenses for C100/II, source canon homepage:

The following EF Lenses are compatible with Face AF and Auto Push Iris:

EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM"

So, not even the 50mm. ???

 

The problem now is sample variation and reliability. Borrowed a Canon DSLR and tested the two NANO 18-135 samples they had in the local shop: No way! Even worser than my two used cheapo 18-55s. One was completely blurred > 70mm... You could see it even in the display before zoomed in. Contrast and colour rendition was in no case significant better  as my 18-55 STM, which also quiet/fast btw.  I'm not sure about AF-Speed, maybe it's a micro second faster than my shorter (and lighter)  STM, but that's absolutely usable anyway. So no real improvement for 600,-

Wish they had updated the 17-55/2.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 70-200mm f2.8 II IS and just got a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. The L is nicer, sure, but mostly it's just two stops faster. The plastic STM is much more stable for me. Better IS and much better balanced.

I'm blind to the enormous aesthetic differences you notice, I'll admit. To me it just looks slightly worse (bokeh fringe, cats eye, vignetting) and a lot slower.  No big differences in micro contrast or rendering. But the L is certainly a beast. Beautiful beautiful image, even wide open. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right, Hockey Fan. Not much difference in this aspect in the newest version. A nice surprise. Ordered the whole bunch of plastic stuff, all three of 'em. :-)

Add to this a fast prime or two (maybe the VC from Tamron or just the 1.8's from Canon) and I'm mostly done. Makes life easier.

(What is different with this old nikkors is the warmish colour cast, but to be honest most of this could be achieved in post nowadays, if desireable)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on the plastic stuff! I'm impressed by the 55-250mm STM. The L is better, but its ergonomics are annoying. I find the IS on the STM to be the best for video that I've used. The Tamrons (old Tamron lenses, maybe not the new primes) have the strongest IS and lock on hard, but glitch a bit when panning and don't pan smooth. Great IS for stills, but not what I want for video.

The 55-250mm STM has great IS, the best balance between stability and smoothness. The 70-200 II IS has good IS, too, but it's too front heavy for handheld use.

It lacks any IS, but the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma is a great lens nonetheless. I might sell mine since I'm leaving the business, but it's wonderful. A+. And wide enough you don't really need stabilization.

It's all subjective. The union operators I know would never use an IS lens, but the rigs they carry (Alexas with big Angie zooms and counterweights) are prohibitively expensive and painstaking to operate and cause crippling back pain by the time you're 30. If I can't afford to hire a martyr like that, then I like IS lenses that don't lock on too hard but still smooth the drift, and the plastic EFS Canons are marvels in this regard. But still take a look at the 18-35mm and a shoulder rig or loupe on the LCD that offers a third point of contact, as a balanced rig with three points of contact will be smooth enough to not need IS at wide angles, while remaining light enough to not kill you. The 18-35mm Sigma is just great and a 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 will fill out your kit nicely if you get it. At 35mm and shorter, IS doesn't seem as necessary to me, anyway. I'd rather be on a Ronin.

I love old Nikkors, but it's a whole different look. I think the older lenses offer almost a stop more DR because they're inherently low contrast but that's an issue, too, when it washes out your image. It's just an entirely different look. More physical. My preference. Not my clients'. So I'm quitting the business and selling everything but my old Nikkors. (And the plastic stuff. It's too good for the money.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 years later...
On 3/26/2017 at 7:06 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

Congrats on the plastic stuff! I'm impressed by the 55-250mm STM. The L is better, but its ergonomics are annoying. I find the IS on the STM to be the best for video that I've used. The Tamrons (old Tamron lenses, maybe not the new primes) have the strongest IS and lock on hard, but glitch a bit when panning and don't pan smooth. Great IS for stills, but not what I want for video.

The 55-250mm STM has great IS, the best balance between stability and smoothness. The 70-200 II IS has good IS, too, but it's too front heavy for handheld use.

It lacks any IS, but the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma is a great lens nonetheless. I might sell mine since I'm leaving the business, but it's wonderful. A+. And wide enough you don't really need stabilization.

It's all subjective. The union operators I know would never use an IS lens, but the rigs they carry (Alexas with big Angie zooms and counterweights) are prohibitively expensive and painstaking to operate and cause crippling back pain by the time you're 30. If I can't afford to hire a martyr like that, then I like IS lenses that don't lock on too hard but still smooth the drift, and the plastic EFS Canons are marvels in this regard. But still take a look at the 18-35mm and a shoulder rig or loupe on the LCD that offers a third point of contact, as a balanced rig with three points of contact will be smooth enough to not need IS at wide angles, while remaining light enough to not kill you. The 18-35mm Sigma is just great and a 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 will fill out your kit nicely if you get it. At 35mm and shorter, IS doesn't seem as necessary to me, anyway. I'd rather be on a Ronin.

I love old Nikkors, but it's a whole different look. I think the older lenses offer almost a stop more DR because they're inherently low contrast but that's an issue, too, when it washes out your image. It's just an entirely different look. More physical. My preference. Not my clients'. So I'm quitting the business and selling everything but my old Nikkors. (And the plastic stuff. It's too good for the money.)

 

I'm obviously late seeing this thread (only about 3 years:)), but thanks for your post @HockeyFan12- very helpful info. I have a Canon C100 mark i and have to shoot some handheld tennis footage and looking for a lens that's relatively light with fairly quiet and fast AF & IS. Are you still a fan of the STMs? Good to hear you especially like the IS on the 55-250 STM since I'm looking at that one, though I'll be shooting some stuff behind players on the court so may need something wider. I'm also looking at the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS II though I'm not sure if the IS & AF are as good/quiet as on the STMs or whether the image is significantly better to justify the higher price. If there's a lens suggestion that springs to mind for what I'm doing, I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TennisGuy said:

I'm obviously late seeing this thread (only about 3 years:)), but thanks for your post @HockeyFan12- very helpful info. I have a Canon C100 mark i and have to shoot some handheld tennis footage and looking for a lens that's relatively light with fairly quiet and fast AF & IS. Are you still a fan of the STMs? Good to hear you especially like the IS on the 55-250 STM since I'm looking at that one, though I'll be shooting some stuff behind players on the court so may need something wider. I'm also looking at the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS II though I'm not sure if the IS & AF are as good/quiet as on the STMs or whether the image is significantly better to justify the higher price. If there's a lens suggestion that springs to mind for what I'm doing, I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

I've only use the 24-105mm L IS version 1, which was okay. Haven't used the V2. The 24-105mm is a more complicated design, it goes from wide angle to slight telephoto and it's full frame and a stop faster so it's entirely possible the STM is a better performer except you lose the 24-55mm range. Probably the image quality is really close from both.

I would choose based on what focal lengths you need, the image quality from both will be great. I got the 55-250mm for $99 on Black Friday refurbished from Canon I think so at the very least it's (more than) worth the money...

Lately I've been focusing more on narrative/home movie stuff (well, except for the lockdown making that kind of impossible so just camera tests right now) so others might have better advice. I haven't tried the 24-105mm v2 with DPAF so I really have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 6:11 PM, TennisGuy said:

I'm obviously late seeing this thread (only about 3 years:)), but thanks for your post @HockeyFan12- very helpful info. I have a Canon C100 mark i and have to shoot some handheld tennis footage and looking for a lens that's relatively light with fairly quiet and fast AF & IS. Are you still a fan of the STMs? Good to hear you especially like the IS on the 55-250 STM since I'm looking at that one, though I'll be shooting some stuff behind players on the court so may need something wider. I'm also looking at the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS II though I'm not sure if the IS & AF are as good/quiet as on the STMs or whether the image is significantly better to justify the higher price. If there's a lens suggestion that springs to mind for what I'm doing, I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

I have the EF S 55-250mm, the EF 24-105mm f4 L lens and the EF S 18-135mm lens. The 18-135mm has much better stabilization and a better range for use on a crop sensor camera than the 24-105. The EF S 18-135mm in fact has a "nano" motor, which is supposed to have the best features of STM and USM, so it is both quiet and fast for AF (better than either STM or USM). It is a unique lens, and you can also make it a variable-power zoom lens, with a Canon attachment (small). That seems ideal for shooting sports action. As a benchmark the 55-250mm STM also has better stabilization than the 24-105 L lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 1:17 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

I've only use the 24-105mm L IS version 1, which was okay. Haven't used the V2. The 24-105mm is a more complicated design, it goes from wide angle to slight telephoto and it's full frame and a stop faster so it's entirely possible the STM is a better performer except you lose the 24-55mm range. Probably the image quality is really close from both.

I would choose based on what focal lengths you need, the image quality from both will be great. I got the 55-250mm for $99 on Black Friday refurbished from Canon I think so at the very least it's (more than) worth the money...

Lately I've been focusing more on narrative/home movie stuff (well, except for the lockdown making that kind of impossible so just camera tests right now) so others might have better advice. I haven't tried the 24-105mm v2 with DPAF so I really have no idea.

Gotcha, thanks for the feedback- really appreciate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2020 at 3:11 PM, TennisGuy said:

I'm obviously late seeing this thread (only about 3 years:)), but thanks for your post @HockeyFan12- very helpful info. I have a Canon C100 mark i and have to shoot some handheld tennis footage and looking for a lens that's relatively light with fairly quiet and fast AF & IS. Are you still a fan of the STMs? Good to hear you especially like the IS on the 55-250 STM since I'm looking at that one, though I'll be shooting some stuff behind players on the court so may need something wider. I'm also looking at the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS II though I'm not sure if the IS & AF are as good/quiet as on the STMs or whether the image is significantly better to justify the higher price. If there's a lens suggestion that springs to mind for what I'm doing, I'd love to hear your thoughts. 

These are my favorites. 35mm F2 IS, 24-105 4 IS, 70-200 F2.8 or F4 IS, 100mm 2.8 Macro IS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 4:41 PM, markr041 said:

I have the EF S 55-250mm, the EF 24-105mm f4 L lens and the EF S 18-135mm lens. The 18-135mm has much better stabilization and a better range for use on a crop sensor camera than the 24-105. The EF S 18-135mm in fact has a "nano" motor, which is supposed to have the best features of STM and USM, so it is both quiet and fast for AF (better than either STM or USM). It is a unique lens, and you can also make it a variable-power zoom lens, with a Canon attachment (small). That seems ideal for shooting sports action. As a benchmark the 55-250mm STM also has better stabilization than the 24-105 L lens.

Thanks @markr041 I'll be sure to check out the EF S 18-135, it's the right focal length and sounds like it might be good for what I need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...