Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon IS lenses on EPIC?

P

peter roehsler

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
328
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Hi, I am looking for advice about either 24/28/35mm IS or short zoom IS lenses (15-85/17-85/18-55 etc) on Epic.
I´ll be doing lots of run and gun handheld stuff and I thought that using an IS lens might be a good idea.
What would you use?
Or do you know of any other lenses with image stabilisation which will work on Epic ? (Sigma? Tamron?)

thanks,
peter
 
I have heard good things about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens, Not sure if it will cover full Epic tho. I have the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM AF Lens and it serves me well. But its slow.
 
Sorry Peterbut those zooms are just about as bad as a zoom can get, are the lowest end of the latter and only included in kits with the cheapest Canon cameras, completely made out of cheap plastic, extremely bad, but if you have absolutely nothing else then better then nothing, just don't expect any good image quality to come form it.

If you want to see some quality out of a Canon Zoom you need to go to the L series, and besides the 17-40, all others including the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 must be the V2 (II) generation, out of this only the 70-200 is an actual IS zoom. The 24-105 is a slow lens like the 17-40 but not too bad either, not as sharp as the 17-40 but it does have IS and of course a much larger range.
 
Kyle Gentz said:
I have heard good things about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens, Not sure if it will cover full Epic tho. I have the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM AF Lens and it serves me well. But its slow.
Click to expand...

The 17-55 does not cover 5k, even 5kWS has vignetting. I use it a lot as my main run and gun lens and just zoom slightly in post to get rid of the vignette.
 
Thanks for your replies.
@Ketch: I was hoping not to have to go the 24-105 route because of 24mm (not really wide enough) and F4 :)
@John: Thanks, that was a crucial piece of info!
 
Love my Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS but IS non-functional on my Scarlet (build 4.0.3)
:(
Suspect same issue on all the Tamron glass....

Stu Aull
SX 199
Alaska
 
peter roehsler said:
Thanks for your replies.
@Ketch: I was hoping not to have to go the 24-105 route because of 24mm (not really wide enough) and F4 :)
@John: Thanks, that was a crucial piece of info!
Click to expand...


Peter, the 24-105 is in fact my list favor lens, and sold it 2 days after I got it, the best value for your money and sharpest zoom in the wide range is the 17-40, still sharper then even the V2 of th e16-35, downside is that is a slower lens @f/4.


Nick Timmons said:
Ketch, you must be thinking of another Canon lens, because the 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S is a fanatic lens, and except for the fact it doesn't cover 5k (FF 1.3x crop), it stacks up very well with similar L-series glass.
In fact, Canon makes many excellent primes that aren't L-series.
Click to expand...


You are right Nick, I some how miss seen what I was writing and I meant the 18-55 NOT the 17-55 which I have not even tried, thanks for the correction.
 
i have both the 17-55 and the 24-105....IS works very, very well....17-55 does vignette a little at 5K....i really wish it wouldn't...i prefer the range and the look of the lens to the 24-105....i only have a scarlet but shoot 5k a lot and use the 17-55 most of the time...yes you will have to crop it just a little but i really prefer having the wide end and being able to zoom in, even if it does not have the long range of the 105....at 4K the 17-55 is great, 24-105 almost too long....i think the IS on the 17-55 works a little better (might just be that longer lenses simply show more shake?)
 
great - thanks everbody.
After Ketch´s review, I will not consider the 24-105.
I still want to make use of IS for doc work. Otherwise I might want to pull out my trusted RED 18-50.
John & Paul: from which focal length does the 17-55 become `usable´? Maybe I could set a physical stopper on the barrel itself?
 
I have the 70-200 2.8 (version 1) with IS and I don't think IS works very well with the EPIC. Not because of the lens but because IS is just not optimized for video. You have to remember to turn it off when you're on a tripod otherwise it starts hunting and when you're shooting hand held (not recommended anyway with a long zoom) movements become kind of unnatural and jerky. Haven't tried the wider lenses, maybe they work better.
 
i just checked the 17-55 and the hard vignette goes away around 40-45mm (5k 2:1) but still quite a bit of vignetting 45-55, but i personally dont mind the look... def a good lens and i wont mind punching in a bit in post or filming 4k which has no vignetting
 
peter roehsler said:
great - thanks everbody.
After Ketch´s review, I will not consider the 24-105.
I still want to make use of IS for doc work. Otherwise I might want to pull out my trusted RED 18-50.
John & Paul: from which focal length does the 17-55 become `usable´? Maybe I could set a physical stopper on the barrel itself?
Click to expand...


Peter, a consideration for you is also that of a lens made for a cropped sensor like that of Epic/Scarlet @1.3 in current sensor, and the use of Still glass made for crop sensor or that which is made for FF sensor, and all Canon "L" series glass is made for FF sensor, so your 24-105mm will give you the perspective image framing of a 31.2-136.5mm, while the 17-40mm will give you the image framing perspective of a 22.1-52mm.
 
I've used the 24-105L for run-n-gun. The IS works well for small vibrations but won't take the shake out of a walk, for example. Still, quite effective.

The 24-105 while advertised as f/4 constant will dim noticeably as you zoom. Focus doesn't breathe though, which is nice and it's a high quality lens for both video and stills work on the Epic/Scarlet

I've also used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which I love. So sharp and contrasty wide open!!!
 
If you use the 17-55, just shoot 4K.
Do you really notice the difference in output quality to 1080p?
Probably not.
 
Canon 17-55 f2.8 is good enough for 6k for me.

Canon 17-55 f2.8 is good enough for 6k for me.

I like the Canon 17-55 2.8, it was the lens that was most often on my Scarlet while I was in India in the past few weeks shooting.
It does vignette at 5K, but it's nice at 4K.
The fact is the lens is perfectly adequate for my shooting for 6K results.
The lens rarely the limit on stock RED cameras.

Please look the the still below. Shot at 21mm at f5.1 at 4K setting. This is a 6K resulting image.
I don't think there is a sharper image coming from a stock RED camera, even if shot at 5K irregardless of $80K lens or not.
( see my 'Got 6K ' thread for some more info on the matter )

Link to 6K still:

http://www.mediafire.com/?8hfytb52qjjgofb ( load into an image viewer to see the detail, as you have to zoom in to see it. )

I can't believe I'm shooting motion pictures at this level of detail. Should look nice on a 84" UHD monitor.
 
We ditched our 24-105 for the newness 24-70 4IS and never looked back - truth is we had our fingers crossed for a 2.8 version with IS but after a long wait no dice. All love for the 24-70 4IS paired with the clutch its a pretty mean, stable setup. Also will give a nod to the 100 2.8 ISII, works magic on a shoulder rig.

Heres what Ken has to say: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top