Canon zooms for video

[Legion6789]

I've got a 5D3 and a set of primes. However, when shooting photography, constantly swapping lenses gets tedious. So I figured I'd get a couple zooms to cover the ~20-200mm range. At first I was trying to get parfocal zooms since that would be useful for video, however that seems to be a tall order for non-cine lenses and all the cine lenses I've seen are out of my price range.

So I was looking at getting the following two Canon zooms, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM for the shorter end and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM for the longer side. I figure this would allow me to cover a large range of focal lengths with just two lenses. So does anybody have experience with these lenses for video? All the reviews I've read only discuss them in the context of photography where both are well regarded. Or any other suggestions in the same price range (~$2000)?

[Liam Hall]

Most of the this was shot on those two lenses:

[Legion6789]

Wow! That was a pretty strong argument in favor of those lenses. Since neither lens is parfocal, have you ever successfully pulled off a zoom by working the focus and zoom at the same time?

[Liam Hall]

My 24-70 is parfocal and my 70-200 used to be, but ever since it took a heavy whack on a job and despite regular servicing it's always been slightly out. I do the occasional zoom on interviews, but the jerky, nervous type rather than slick and smooth variety. Without modification stills lenses don't excel and zooming.

[Legion6789]

Did you somehow get them converted to parfocal?

[Liam Hall]

Both these lenses are supposed to be parfocal, though the reality is some are and some aren't.

[Samuel H]

Those two lenses are awesome, but really expensive. If the price is not an issue for you, well, I don't think you'll find anything better.

some numbers and tests here:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012...k-ii-variation

and also, here, where it says "To look at it another way, the highest MTF 50 numbers we’ve had for a zoom on 5DII cameras is the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which has peak MTF50 of 875 LP/IH and average of 755"
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...ick-comparison

[Legion6789]

Just picked up the 70-200mm. They were sold out of the 24-70mm. The 70-200 isn't parfocal, but it's close. That's ok, for now I'm just happy to have this awesome, ridiculously heavy lens. I can't even imagine trying to handhold a DSLR with a cine zoom on it.

[cookinghusband]

You do not suppost to handheld a cine zoom, is like a bazoooka. You need a rig to operate it.

The 70-200mm will keep you happy.

Just wondering if the the Tamron 70-200VC is parfocal

[Legion6789]

Picked up the 24-70mm today, and what do you know... it's parfocal. Or at least de facto parfocal. If I zoom in and focus I can zoom to any focal length and it holds. The demo lens in the store was not parfocal. It amazes me that there can be this much variation between lenses of the same model.

[JOEinSD]

I'm not sure why anyone would hand-hold anything past 70mm anyway.. At that range you should be using a monopod or something.

Anyhow, the 70-200 mk2 is my most used lens at weddings from day to night used mostly on a monopod.

[legrevedotcom]

It doesn't say much I know, but these three videos were shot with the 24-70 2.8L II, with a few shots down with the 100mm 2.8L macro IS USM.

https://vimeo.com/legreve

I also sport a 70-200 2.8L II IS USM which is nothing less than amazing. I thought the original 70-200mm was great, but the new one... oh man.

In regards to using them for video. Before peaking I can imagine these would have been really annoying to work with, as they have no proper witness marks and the rotation is way too short compared to cine lenses.... but.... By now where I know them in and out, they are pretty darn good.
My fingers know that I only need to turn the focus wheel a mm or so.

Just today I came to the conclusion that I can't be bothered trying to build a C/Y Zeiss set simply because I can't complain one bit about the L lenses quality. The new 24-70 II is really a lot better than the old one. Price tag is just a little too steep in my opinion.

Anyways... if you buy those two, you won't be disappointed. But let me say again... the II version of both is really a lot better than the first ones.

[Andrius Simutis]

Picked up the 24-70mm today, and what do you know... it's parfocal. Or at least de facto parfocal. If I zoom in and focus I can zoom to any focal length and it holds. The demo lens in the store was not parfocal. It amazes me that there can be this much variation between lenses of the same model.

I've seen people focus on the wide end, and then zoom in to find the lens out of focus. This doesn't mean that it's necessarily not parfocal, just that there's more room for error in the wide end than when zoomed in. Zoom all the way in, focus and go wide. Then check if it's still in focus using the 10x.
Also, this doesn't mean that the lens you checked at the store was perfect either, just that on these photo lenses parfocal can only really be judged in one direction.

[New_Zealand]

I just looked at the price of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Damm that thing is pricy. I have the 70-200mm II and was wondering the same abut the something in the 24 area. What is the next step lens that come close to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM that won't break the pocket book?

[New_Zealand]

How off set would the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0L IS USM? I've been trying not to go any higher then the 2.8 but the cost is out of reach for me at the moment.