C100: 70 - 200 F4 Canon Lens

ollywood88

ollywood88

Well-known member
Hi All,

I am looking at getting the 70-200 NON IS F4 for corporate interviews, I was going for this over the 2.8.

Is anyone using the F4 Model?

Wanted to use in interview scenarios, I currently vary the lenses from 35, 50, 85 but the 70-200 is quite cheap now.

Any still images would be great,

Thanks
 
I use the 70-200 as my default interview lens but...sometimes the room isn't large enough. I even go out in the hall and shoot into the room if noise isn't an issue.

However, I have the 2.8 and I would highly recommend that. The one stop makes a world of difference. It is heavy though, so when an interviewee shifts in their seat mid sentence and you're caught asleep at the wheel, it's tricky to unlock and correct.

And here's an afterthought: I watch a lot of high end documentaries and the trend is to have a very wide shot with a tight angle. I'm trying to move towards that.
 
I have the 70-200 F4 IS and love it. If you don't mind the price and the weight, go with the 2.8. For my taste, the 2.8 is too heavy...I have the 100-400 (that weigh about the same) and it does't go in my backpack too often because of this. Like Ned, it happen to me too having to unlock and reframe, and though it happens with any lens, with 3 lbs hanging upfront, it's less forgiving than the 70-200 F4.
 
2.8 is for poseurs who dont rate the longevity of their spine.

F4 non is is a wonderful efficient bit of glass.

S
 
Doug_EX said:
Like Ned, it happen to me too having to unlock and reframe, and though it happens with any lens, with 3 lbs hanging upfront, it's less forgiving than the 70-200 F4.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you guys need to get a longer plate setup to make balancing the tripod with a long lens feasible such that you won't have to unlock the tripod to make adjustments. That, and/or perhaps a stronger tripod. I typically leave the tripod unlocked for interviews (you guys were talking about the tilt lock on the tripod, right?).

I use the Manfrotto 357 plates on all of my cameras, and use the 357 adapter on all of my tripods. One nice thing about using the adapters is you then get twice as much adjustable length since you can adjust both the tripod's original plate and the plate on the camera/adapter.

IMG_3547_edited_2.jpg
 
The 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark II is considered by many to be one of the best lenses Canon has ever made. The images are stellar to say the least and the extra stop over the f4 makes a huge difference.

On my FS7, I use an L-Bracket which is rigged to the top handle and supports the lenses without any rods. This makes a huge difference because now I use it all time. Before, when I had to use rails to support it, it stayed in the bag a lot more.

I would say get the f2.8, it's amazing.
 
is there a "cheap" setup that will allow you to use the longer/heavier lenses without a lot of fuss? ideally youd be able to switch from something like the 24-105 to the 70-200 2.8 without taking the cam off tripod but without worrying about the lens's weight eventually deforming the lens mount on the cam body.

what can you do that doesnt involve zacuto plates and rails? im thinking of a c100 here by the way.

ps dont forget the 70-200 2.8 V1. that is a thing that exists.
 
Josh Bass said:
is there a "cheap" setup that will allow you to use the longer/heavier lenses without a lot of fuss?
Click to expand...
Yeah, by using no support at all.

I did a shoot a few weeks ago with the Canon 17-120 Cine-Servo (6.4 lbs, the 70-200 II is 3.28 lbs) on the C300 Mark II. The rented lens was missing the lens support piece that goes between the rails, so using some other rail parts suited for other purposes, along with gaff tape, I was able to form a secure connection to the rails to give the lens proper support. As I was the AC on the shoot, I then handed the camera off to the DP/Cam Op, who later removed all the support I put on, and rode that 6.4 lb lens bare without support, holding it by the lens handle, the camera handle, etc. I advised against it. He did it anyway. Nothing broke.



035.jpg


I had my C300 Mark II on set as well which they were renting, but fortunately it was getting easy work with a light L-series lens on a tripod all day.

Overall I think if you're not too rough with throwing the camera around you can use the 70-200 without additional support.

I've been using the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (2.87 lbs) on my C100s for years without support and without issue. I used it on my 60D as well from a tripod, which once busted the cheap ($10) China Nikon to EF lens adapter I had on there when I placed the tripod down too harshly, splitting the adapter in two, but the lens and the camera were not damaged, and I simply bought a better adapter after that.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Sounds like you guys need to get a longer plate setup to make balancing the tripod with a long lens feasible such that you won't have to unlock the tripod to make adjustments. That, and/or perhaps a stronger tripod. I typically leave the tripod unlocked for interviews (you guys were talking about the tilt lock on the tripod, right?).

I use the Manfrotto 357 plates on all of my cameras, and use the 357 adapter on all of my tripods. One nice thing about using the adapters is you then get twice as much adjustable length since you can adjust both the tripod's original plate and the plate on the camera/adapter.

IMG_3547_edited_2.jpg
Click to expand...
My bad...I forgot that the 70-200 2.8 does not extend when zooming. I did the same exact thing as you...Manfrotto 357 on everthing.
But with the mighty 100-400 when going from 100 to 400 it does add quite some weight in front.
 
I use the 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM Lens without rails ie just connected to the C300 and the mount is sturdy enough to survive in wildlife conditions (bumpy rides, elephant rides, boat rides, treks etc). In corporate shooting conditions there is only a constant load which is the weight of the lens. There are no vibrations. You should be fine directly attaching the lens.

When I am using the OConnor fluid head and balance it, there is no need to lock or locking slightly. When I am using a Gitzo tripod with a manfrotto head, locking gives better results.
 
Doug_EX said:
My bad...I forgot that the 70-200 2.8 does not extend when zooming. I did the same exact thing as you...Manfrotto 357 on everthing.
But with the mighty 100-400 when going from 100 to 400 it does add quite some weight in front.
Click to expand...
Oh cool, a 357 brother. I love the 357 setup but find not many people use it. I initially got into it because Joe Simon recommended using it with the Glidecam since it can be flipped around so that camera body doesn't interfere with the knob for loosening and tightening the plate. Then as an added bonus the setup also balances better on tripods and other support gear.

I just bought the Manfrotto 357LONG to use with the Canon 100-400 as discussed in this topic. Looks like it should work. It arrives next Monday.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/241158-REG/Manfrotto_357PLONG_357LONG_Pro_Video_Quick.html
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Oh cool, a 357 brother. I love the 357 setup but find not many people use it. I initially got into it because Joe Simon recommended using it with the Glidecam since it can be flipped around so that camera body doesn't interfere with the knob for loosening and tightening the plate. Then as an added bonus the setup also balances better on tripods and other support gear.

I just bought the Manfrotto 357LONG to use with the Canon 100-400 as discussed in this topic. Looks like it should work. It arrives next Monday.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/241158-REG/Manfrotto_357PLONG_357LONG_Pro_Video_Quick.html
Click to expand...

Wow! 10 inches long.

I got tired changing plates. I have a Sachtler head, a manfrotto head (monopod) and a Cartoni HD head. I bought Manfrotto quick release plates for all of them.
 
Yeah, I've got around five or six 357 plates and adapters now, plus two of the Manfrotto 577 adapters, so around $400 of adapters. I have a Vinten head, Manfrotto heads, and Benro heads. Benro heads are terrible; some of their legs are pretty good.

Of note Manfrotto changed the 357 so the gold piece in the plate is no longer there, the rubber stopper is no longer there so screws fall out when the plate is not attached to a camera, and you can't fit 3/8" screws in it, only 1/4" screws. Absurd! I returned the last one I bought from B&H and went to Ebay to get the original and much superior version.

Which do you prefer, the Cartoni or the Sachtler? I've been unimpressed by Sachtler's smaller offerings such as the FSB4 and I think the FSB8; the drag wasn't as stiff as I'd like for a C100. I really liked the Sachtler Video 20 S1 which I got to use on a shoot with the 100-400; smooth moves at 400mm. Kind of heavy for general use, though.


Doug_EX said:
Wow! 10 inches long.
Click to expand...
That's what she said.
 
Last edited:
i dont know, friends...i know someone who has a c300 and used the 70-200 with no support quite a bit and now his mount is mishapen.
 
I used the 70-200 F4 non-IS for a few years as a stills photographer. It's an amazing lens and was considered, for a long time, to be the sharpest lens Canon ever made.
 
nedcam said:
I use the 70-200 as my default interview lens but...sometimes the room isn't large enough. I even go out in the hall and shoot into the room if noise isn't an issue.

However, I have the 2.8 and I would highly recommend that. The one stop makes a world of difference. It is heavy though, so when an interviewee shifts in their seat mid sentence and you're caught asleep at the wheel, it's tricky to unlock and correct.

And here's an afterthought: I watch a lot of high end documentaries and the trend is to have a very wide shot with a tight angle. I'm trying to move towards that.
Click to expand...
ned-

care to share an example of what you are seeing?

thanks in advance.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions
 
Last edited:
I have a 70-200 F4 IS and I love it..... very lightweight, and fantastic images. For this shoot I borrowed my neighbors 70-200 F2.8 II for this shoot, and can say despite everyone telling me Im crazy if I see a difference in a mere video image between the two lenses, I can honestly say I see a huge difference between them. I don't know if the difference would be that drastic shooting outside, but indoors with controlled lighting I think it makes a huge difference.

That said, I bought my F4 for $400 used. At that price you just can't go wrong. Buy it then move up to the 2.8.

BTW, I used the 70-200 F2.8 II without any support even on a Kessler second shooter with no problems.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top