C100: 70 - 200 F4 Canon Lens
- Thread starter ollywood88
- Start date
ollywood88
Well-known member
Thanks guys I will just st be using it for interviews do you think the f4 non is be ok? Or is it worth saving for the non is 2.8??
Thanks
Thanks
F/4 indoors is always going to be a disappointment IMO, unless you're just really, really well lit. That said, the Canon 70-200 2.8 is gonna cost you 1300 clams. I'd seriously consider the Tamron 70-200 2.8. You can get one new on eBay for less than 600 dollars. I use it regularly and I'm satisfied. Then again, I only go telephoto on rare occasions when I need the extreme reach. If this is going to be your go-to lens for everything -- which is hard to believe -- then yeah, maybe spring for the Canon 70-200 2.8. You can tell a slight difference in quailty, but still not worth the extra $$$ for the Canon methinks, at least not for interviews.
ollywood88
Well-known member
Thanks mainly for lit interviews on my c100. Hence why I didn't want to get a 2.8 if only using it for a short use.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
Doesn't get much easier than this:
It's just a long plate on the camera and a short Manfrotto plate on the lens collar to make up the difference in height.
**edit: What the?! Why is my photo upside down here and nowhere else?
nedcam
Well-known member
Hi Rob,
What I mean in terms of a newer look I have been seeing in higher end documentaries is that the main shot is much wider than it used to be. Shows like Frontline, American Experience, even Dateline. But I also watch a lot of award winning docs on Netflix, I'm a doc junkie. Here's stills from Tig, Steve Jobs and An Honest Liar. What I like about a wider main interview shot is that it sets the scene, lets you know more about the subject by really seeing their environment. The downside for DPs is that we have to light, straighten out, prop and style a greater expanse. Seems the last 7-9 years the style of throw it all soft ruled, but I am now been doing this for soooo long I've seen many styles come and go, and in the upper end, this seems to be a new way to go.
My main revenue is corporate, so it's not so easy making cubicles and offices look good wide. When I do TV shows they send out a style sheet that dictates the width. But I do like the wider look and have been talking more clients into it. The 70-200 tends towards tights and I must say, an unattractive subject ruins my shot!
Lastly, if it seems the subject will be animated and talk with their hands I usually talk the client into wide. We often will have a second camera angle but if it's with the 70-200, wow, it has to be back quite a few feet which can be hard for the second angle position.
BTW, I have a Sachtler 20. It's insured replacement value is $9K with the graphite legs. Yes, it's heavy but I'm not white collar.
P.S. I have a long plate since I often have a 15" heavy teleprompter on my head, but this 70-200 is so heavy it's very touchy for reframing, I have to push/pull harder on my handle.
Attachments
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Yeah, I'd think the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is fine as an interview lens. I've often heard it is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. For sit down interviews you don't want IS anyway. I typically film my tight shot for interviews with a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ($350, optically it's great) at f/4-f/5.6 at ISO 320-850, shutter at 1/48. Now that I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I'll still use the same settings. I avoid f/2.8 for sit down interviews because f/4-f/5.6 is sharper, the deeper depth of field keeps the person in focus easier if they move back and forth, I actually like to have a person's whole head in focus (such as their ears), not just their eyes, and often I want (the viewer) to have an idea of what the background is, as opposed to the background being a blob of out of focus mush.
How does a 3.28 lb lens make any difference in terms of being "so heavy" on a tripod that is rated to handle up to 55 lbs?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Yeah, I'd think the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is fine as a sit down interview lens. I've often heard it is sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. For sit down interviews you don't want IS anyway. I typically film my tight shot for interviews with a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ($350, optically it's great) at f/4-f/5.6 at ISO 320-850, shutter at 1/48. Now that I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I'll still use the same settings. I avoid f/2.8 for sit down interviews because f/4-f/5.6 is sharper, the deeper depth of field keeps the person in focus easier if they move back and forth, I actually like to have a person's whole head in focus (such as their ears), not just their eyes, and often I want (the viewer) to have an idea of what the background is, as opposed to the background being a blob of out of focus mush.
If you're doing run n' gun interviews, with minimal or no lighting, then f/2.8 will help more, and if you're doing run n' gun interviews from a monopod, then IS will help.
Well if you're doing a sit down interview then I'd sure hope you'd have sufficient light to film at f/4. Even a $50 Home Depot light setup could get you to f/4 at ISO 320-850. I suppose if you're using some of the lower powered first generation LED lights for your key and fill then you may be under-lit, or with a couple Lowel Pro 250s. For my key lights I first used Home Depot lights, then an Arri 650 through diffusion, then a Lowel Rifa 1K, and now I use a Litepanel Astra for my key. Plenty of light.
How does a 3.28 lb lens make any difference in terms of being "so heavy" on a tripod that is rated to handle up to 55 lbs?
Last edited:
nedcam
Well-known member
How does a 3.28 lb lens make any difference in terms of being "so heavy" on a tripod that is rated to handle up to 55 lbs?[/QUOTE]
It"s touchy, depending where I set the balance. I don't see how you guys with lighter heads can handle the weight. Also, I never trusted the weight ratings the manufacturers put out. That's like trusting the auto industry's MPG ratings. They use the maximum possible figure. I have been on many a shoot where a lighter weight tripod fell over destroying the camera and/or lens because it was too light for the application although the ratings would suggest otherwise. Specifically when it gets bumped or a client trips on a cable, etc. So I like heavy. And with a $2500 lens that could easily pitch forward, I am careful.
Also, a heavier head proves it's worth in extreme tele or macro, where every bobble is amplified visually. I have cut corners on my insurance coverage but always kept the Sachtler 20 at full replacement value. I have Vintens for 2nd angle, stills, etc., there's nothing like a Sachtler 20.
It"s touchy, depending where I set the balance. I don't see how you guys with lighter heads can handle the weight. Also, I never trusted the weight ratings the manufacturers put out. That's like trusting the auto industry's MPG ratings. They use the maximum possible figure. I have been on many a shoot where a lighter weight tripod fell over destroying the camera and/or lens because it was too light for the application although the ratings would suggest otherwise. Specifically when it gets bumped or a client trips on a cable, etc. So I like heavy. And with a $2500 lens that could easily pitch forward, I am careful.
Also, a heavier head proves it's worth in extreme tele or macro, where every bobble is amplified visually. I have cut corners on my insurance coverage but always kept the Sachtler 20 at full replacement value. I have Vintens for 2nd angle, stills, etc., there's nothing like a Sachtler 20.
dustylense
Veteran
I got a used 70-200 F/4 IS for $175! A corporate photo studio was auctioning off all their stuff and I won the bid. A fine piece of glass too. Even the old non IS 70-200 F4 is a great lens.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Double WOW!
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Isn't there pretty much an ideal equilibrium where the balance is perfect? So assuming a head can handle the weight, is a good head, and is balanced properly, it should be able to be adjusted well without locking it, I'd think.
This was my setup when I used the Sachtler 20 with the 5.5 lb Zeiss 28-70. Worked well.
And the other Sachtler 20 we had on set had the Canon 400 f/2.8 on it which is 8.49 lbs.
The OConnor 1030 is its primary competition, I'd say. I used the OConnor with the Arri Alexa once and I feel the starts and stops were more buttery smooth than the Sachtler 20. I read in one place that the 1030 isn't as good at handling lighter camera loads (such as C-series cameras) as the Sachtler 20 is, though.
I just picked up the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I got the Zacuto Gorilla C100 baseplate (demo) which is on clearance for $69 from Zacuto, and will be adding Zacuto rails and a Tilta lens support for another $150. Seems like a decent support for under $300 and gives the option of adding follow focus later.
indiawilds
Veteran
Depends on the COG of your rig. Raise the camera+lens+whatever rig even an inch and the weight bearing capacity goes down. You may need to check the spec sheet issued by the manufacturer of the fluid head.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Manfrotto 357LONG seems to work well with the 100-400 II.
