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 :)

work horse lens for the epic-w

P

paul Robinson

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Boulder, CO
I am torn between lenses as my go to work horse lens for my epic-w. Here are the 2 lenses I am torn between.

Canon 24-70 2.8 II

pros- seems to be sharper but cant find any side by side comparisons
f/2.8
faster af for when i am shooting on my 1dxii

cons-

no image stabilization
mush more expensive

Sigma 24-105 f4 art

pros- image stabilizer, cheaper, wider range
cons- f4 rather than 2.8

I would love to know what you guys think and would go with in this situation. I do a lot of run and gun shooting so i need something that is going to work well in a multitude of situations. also, I work in low light a lot so the 2.8 could be of value.
 
Consider Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 if you don't mind changing lenses. That 2.0 really comes in handy. But if you have to stick to one lens perhaps 24-105 for outdoors and 24-70 indoors.
 
Why not canon 24-105 mkii instead of sigma. Then you got ois.
 
Sigma 24-105 Art is an awful design to operate for motion. The Focus ring is recessed, really skinny and on mount side of the lens (Zoom ring is on front element side). The lens is sharp...only good thing I find about it.

On my Dragon, when the Stabilization is turned "ON" on the lens it locks the lens iris wide open (seems like a compatibility issue). The camera can not control the iris...so no stabilization, f4, 82mm front, large physical size compared to canon 24-105, and terrible to operate...ugh

-dane
 
The Sigma 50-100 breathes like a puffer fish. The 18-35 is great though. As far as workhorse lenses go, these are stills lenses and will cover only so far. Maybe consider the Canon 24-70 and 70-200 which is a pretty tried and true F 2.8 combination. Or, if you can tolerate the thought of cine pricing, pick up a used Fujinon Cabrio 19-90 v1. It's a fantastic lens and they're selling for $13-17k on the used market. I wish I'd bought one years ago as I have one or more on just about every job.
 
Why not the Tamron 24-70?

It's both 2.8 AND it has IS....

It's quite good actually...it has 82mm filter threads but some step rings on the others would solve this...
 
Cameron Ryan said:
Canon 24-105 IS f.4 is sharper and got great stabilization but it all depends on your budget mate.
Click to expand...

I picked one up in new condition on eBay for 400.00. Go figure. Love this lens. Shot a doc on it in Sierra Leone recently with just one fast prime as a compliment. Stabilization is excellent, it's small and for 4 to 6k it's sharp in all corners.
 
Worth noting that the Canon 24-105 f4 IS is quite a bit slower than the sigma art 24-105. In my experience, despite both being f4 designs, the sigma is noticeably brighter at f4 and the canon loses as much as a stop of light toward the end of its range. That said, the IS on the sigma is something you have to be a bit careful with, I have found it to be pretty ugly at certain focal lengths but works fine in others. I think it has to do with the threshold at which it lets go and lets you pan the camera. I don't recall how the canon 24-105 compares in that regard though.

That said, the canon 24-105 sold so many copies and was bundled with so many bodies you can get them dirt cheap used compared to retail, but they've also been around longer so you may find some really worn out ones.
 
24-70 gets my vote. Very sharp, great contrast and colour for a still lens. You have the option of cropping if 70mm isn't long enough, but you can't add light that's not there that you get with a 2.8.

It also works very well in a set if you also get the 16-35 and 70-200.

EDIT: the 24-70 Mk II. Don't get the first one, it's soft.
 
Last edited:
Ned Wilson said:
Agreed. Also 77mm front makes it compatible with other Canon Zooms (except 16-35)
Click to expand...
used to use this for outdoor run and gun - good lens - but it is not (well you can compare yourself) the sharpest / flattest for cinema standards
16-35 f2.8 is useful but again not the flattest image
Many use 24-70 f2.8 as budget cinema zoom
 
My experience/opinion: To preface, I've shot everything from low budget music vids to commercials (up to $200k budget). I've used the 24-105 Canon, 24-70 Canon, and a wide array of primes and zooms in various PL/EF/E/m43 configurations.

If you are STRICTLY running and gunning without much to help you stabilize - monopod/shoulder rig, get the 24-105 Canon with IS. Helium's low light capability will help with the f/4.

If you are doing commercial work and mixing with run n gun and have a stabilizer (monopod/shoulder rig) and the image needs to be super clean/sharp, I would lean towards the 24-70 ii.

I've found the down-rez from 8K makes both lenses pretty sharp if scaled down to 4K or 2K, but the 24-70 has a slight edge. It just looks a little cleaner to me, and being able to open the aperture up a little more to get a more shallow depth of field is nice, if your intention is to also use as a variable prime vs strictly a zoom.

With that said, I've found the 24-105 more practical a lens for run n gun. If I NEED it, I'll rent a 24-70. Otherwise I have a 17-50 RED Pro Zoom which is a better focal length range for Epic-W when needing to jump down to 6K for 60fps and higher.
 
Last edited:
A simple and cheap lens that got my attention is the new version of the 18-135 with that additional Powerzoom-Adaptor PZ-E1. Just bringing it up, maybe it's enough for the job. Haven't read real good reviews focused on real cine-use so far. It's probably not great here, but so aren't the other Canon Zooms, and hey it's cheap. (keep in mind it's EF-S, not FF)

I'd vote for the Canon offerings. The Sigma 24-105 Art doesn't offer anything over them. I personally used the 18-35/1.8 for run and gun all the time once i had it. ;-)
 
A lot of really great insight arthur, thanks so much! I am going to my local camera shop tomorrow to play with all of the mentioned lenses. the 17-50 RED lens seems pretty ideal but I am assuming out of my price range for now. I am quite curious to see how the tamron 24-70 with image stabilization performs against the canon version ii. the new zeis 21-100 also seems like a good option when it comes out!
 
paul Robinson said:
A lot of really great insight arthur, thanks so much! I am going to my local camera shop tomorrow to play with all of the mentioned lenses. the 17-50 RED lens seems pretty ideal but I am assuming out of my price range for now. I am quite curious to see how the tamron 24-70 with image stabilization performs against the canon version ii. the new zeis 21-100 also seems like a good option when it comes out!
Click to expand...

The reason why I would vote for a Canon L over the others is build quality.

The L lenses do not break unless you're really abusing them. I won't call out any companies but I've had other lenses break on me, whether it's the IS unit or focusing barrel getting stuck. I treat my gear very well too.

The 24-70 and 24-105 is the toughest decision to make. In certain instances I wish I had the extra stop so I don't have to push my ISO or get more light, in other instances I wish I had more reach. I've realized for the type of projects I use a zoom for and the budget is pretty restricted (I.e. Non-existent for lenses), I really do need the extra range, and that lighting/ISO can be adjusted. Also think about it - if you're shooting night exteriors with barely any light at all, an extra stop is not going to help much anyway. You're more likely to boost the ISO to see a real difference. At that point an a7s ii might be a better choice lol.

Perhaps in addition to checking them out, rent them for shoots to see what you're more comfortable with, it's like $25-35/day or weekend

PS you can buy a 17-50 RED for around $4k on the second hand market.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top