Documentary Film-maker low light wide to mid size lens

[AvidInBoston]

I'm a documentary film-maker. I'm about to purchase the Canon C100 Mark II. I need a general all-purpose lens to complement the macro and telephoto lenses I already own. Currently I have the Canon EF 100mm f2/2.8 IS USM Macro Lens and the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom lens, two fantastic lenses.

I need good low light performance and the ability to capture a wider establishing shot.

So I guess it's a choice between the following:

1) Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens ($1900)

2) Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras $830)

3) Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($1000)

4) Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens For Canon EOS SLR Camera ($1000)

Since I want to be able to shoot in low-light, there's a major advantage in being able to go to 2.8. Also the L lens is crisp and sharp. So it would seem the EF 24-70L lens is the best choice. But since it lacks image-stabilization, I'm worried that this lens is best for still photography and not video.

I'm wondering if it's worth waiting a few months to see if Canon is going to come out with an IS version of the 24-70 f2.8 lens.  Otherwise perhaps the best choice is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 because it has IS.  

Thanks

[TTMartin]

---

@AvidInBoston wrote:

I'm a documentary film-maker. I'm about to purchase the Canon C100 Mark II. I need a general all-purpose lens to complement the macro and telephoto lenses I already own. Currently I have the Canon EF 100mm f2/2.8 IS USM Macro Lens and the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom lens, two fantastic lenses.

I need good low light performance and the ability to capture a wider establishing shot.

So I guess it's a choice between the following:

1) Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens ($1900)

2) Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras $830)

3) Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($1000)

4) Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens For Canon EOS SLR Camera ($1000)

Since I want to be able to shoot in low-light, there's a major advantage in being able to go to 2.8. Also the L lens is crisp and sharp. So it would seem the EF 24-70L lens is the best choice. But since it lacks image-stabilization, I'm worried that this lens is best for still photography and not video.

I'm wondering if it's worth waiting a few months to see if Canon is going to come out with an IS version of the 24-70 f2.8 lens.  Otherwise perhaps the best choice is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 because it has IS.  

Thanks

---

Since your camera is compatible with EF-S lenses, and it's sensor  will be covered by the image circle produced by those lenses, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM would seem to be your best choice.

Canon doesn't label any EF-S lenses as L lenses, but, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS  has outstanding image quality on par or exceeding that of some of the L lenses you have listed there. 

[TCampbell]

Canon makes 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm prime lenses that have image stabilization (the IS feature is mostly useful for video at these focal lengths because you wouldn't normally need "IS" on a short focal length prime in this range for still shots.)

28mm will seem like a "normal" focal length (neither wide nor telephoto).  The magnification factor for any lens can be found by dividing the focal length of the lens by the diagonal measure of the camera's imaging chip.  For a C100 that's 28.2mm... hence a 28mm lens on a camera with a 28.2mm diagonal sensor means you're pretty much at 1x magnification (neither tele nor wide-angle).   24mm will only be mildly wide.  

There are, of course, shorter focal length lenses for wide angle shots, but these don't have IS.  Camera shake is less noticeable at wide angles (and very noticeable at long focal lengths). 

[TTMartin]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

Canon makes 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm prime lenses that have image stabilization (the IS feature is mostly useful for video at these focal lengths because you wouldn't normally need "IS" on a short focal length prime in this range for still shots.)

28mm will seem like a "normal" focal length (neither wide nor telephoto).  The magnification factor for any lens can be found by dividing the focal length of the lens by the diagonal measure of the camera's imaging chip.  For a C100 that's 28.2mm... hence a 28mm lens on a camera with a 28.2mm diagonal sensor means you're pretty much at 1x magnification (neither tele nor wide-angle).   24mm will only be mildly wide.  

There are, of course, shorter focal length lenses for wide angle shots, but these don't have IS.  Camera shake is less noticeable at wide angles (and very noticeable at long focal lengths). 

---

I agree these prime lenses are probably your best choice for video.

[ebiggs1]

"Since your camera is compatible with EF-S lenses, and it's sensor  will be covered by the image circle produced by those lenses, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM would seem to be your best choice.

Canon doesn't label any EF-S lenses as L lenses, but, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS  has outstanding image quality on par or exceeding that of some of the L lenses you have listed there."

This is true and is the topic of another thread here on the Canon Forum.  Just because the lens has an "L" in its name does not mean it is the sharpest for your or any particular use.

Remember "L" lenses are designed for FF cameras.  EF-S lenses are designed for smaller sized sensors.  They can perform very well sometimes better.