C100: 70-200mm f2.8 II L IS wonkiness

[Policar]

Just got my 70-200mm f2.8 II L IS today. Somehow my bank account is once-again depleted!

So far it seems a bit sharper than the non-IS lens it's intended to replace in my arsenal (still not in the same league as the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, which is an instant legend), but the main reason I wanted it is for the IS. Both have fine image quality.

And the issue with that is... the IS jumps a lot when enabled. I turned it off then on and it seemed to settle ok, but it might have latched on and jumped once and I didn't catch it clearly. There also seems to be an issue in which the aperture shifts a little with IS enabled.

Anyone else have these issues? I had a 70-300mm Tamron that I kind of loved, but the IS on it was truly too strong for video. Canon's is not as strong and I want to love it, but the glitchiness is pretty severe. I'll look and see if I can replicate it and post a video.

 

[AndreeOnline]

And the issue with that is... the IS jumps a lot when enabled.

Well.. are you panning the camera? Have you engaged Mode 2?

IS is for holding the camera still (without support). If you move the camera with IS on, the image will jump since the lens tries to keep the picture you had just before you started to move. At some point it will let go and snap to the new position and this produces a jump in the image.

If you engage Mode 2 you disable lateral IS, meaning you can pan on a tripod with smooth motion. But you will still get jumps if you move the camera up and down.

If you intend to move the camera you need to shut IS off and stabilize the camera itself for smooth motion.

 

[Policar]

So you can't reframe at all (even slightly) and IS is only for lock off shots? With the 17-55mm f2.8 IS I rarely had violent jumpy corrections like this.

So IS is essentially useless for video?

Without IS that's usable for video, the added optical benefit of the expensive lens seems.... dubious.

 

[AndreeOnline]

So you can't reframe at all (even slightly) and IS is only for lock off shots? With the 17-55mm f2.8 IS I rarely had violent jumpy corrections like this.

So IS is essentially useless for video?

Without IS that's usable for video, the added optical benefit of the expensive lens seems.... dubious.

Whether the IS adds anything to your productions is up to you. We have to remember that we're talking about one of Canon's (any brand's for that matter) finest lenses for stills photography. Needless to say, when shooting stills the function is invaluable at those focal lengths.

Since it is a professional lens, it allows for turning off lateral IS, ideal for following birds in flight or racing cars for instance. As a filmmaker you can take advantage of this when panning on a tripod or monopod.

Depending on what and how you shoot, IS can remove lots of micro stutter when hand held—the kind of stutter that is difficult to remove in post. For a wedding videographer I imagine that IS is worth quite a bit.

The list of high end cine glass that is stabilized is... well short. Traditionally the camera gets stabilized, not the lens, to make sure that the whole camera move is smooth.

Even if you turn off IS on the 70-200mm 2.8 II IS, you still have world class optics in the range to put to good use.

 

[Policar]

Whether the IS adds anything to your productions is up to you. We have to remember that we're talking about one of Canon's (any brand's for that matter) finest lenses for stills photography. Needless to say, when shooting stills the function is invaluable at those focal lengths.

Since it is a professional lens, it allows for turning off lateral IS, ideal for following birds in flight or racing cars for instance. As a filmmaker you can take advantage of this when panning on a tripod or monopod.

Depending on what and how you shoot, IS can remove lots of micro stutter when hand held—the kind of stutter that is difficult to remove in post. For a wedding videographer I imagine that IS is worth quite a bit.

The list of high end cine glass that is stabilized is... well short. Traditionally the camera gets stabilized, not the lens, to make sure that the whole camera move is smooth.

Even if you turn off IS on the 70-200mm 2.8 II IS, you still have world class optics in the range to put to good use.

I suppose, but it's not that much better than the 70-200mm f2.8 L, which I already own. :/

IS does seem to remove lots of stutter, but it will suddenly (even while holding steady) drastically over-correct and the image will jump really hard, rendering random frames useless.

I'm aware of how high end cinema glass works, I've shot with much of it (recently Primos and the 15-40mm Angenieux), but we must remember that a fully-outfitted cinema camera is usually 30+ pounds and much more stable in the first place. That said, of course IS exists as a sort of last-resort for stabilization, but I'd like to be useable and from what I've seen it's essentially useless for video as it will randomly introduce huge jumps.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Ironically, the "better" an IS is—that is, it can maintain constant framing even if the camera moves quite a bit—the "worse" it will look when it finally snaps to
the new framing if it decides that the camera has made a legitimate move after all.

Regarding how much better it is for video than the mkI... I'll take your word for it. Full HD is only 2MP and even 4k is just 8MP image size.

I know I'm really happy with my mkII for both stills and video on a 1Dc.

 

[Policar]

Ironically, the "better" an IS is—that is, it can maintain constant framing even if the camera moves quite a bit—the "worse" it will look when it finally snaps to
the new framing if it decides that the camera has made a legitimate move after all.

Regarding how much better it is for video than the mkI... I'll take your word for it. Full HD is only 2MP and even 4k is just 8MP image size.

I know I'm really happy with my mkII for both stills and video on a 1Dc.

That's not entirely true, an IS system could be developed to compensate smoothly for a pan.

Do you find IS useable for video? I'm having trouble justifying owning this lens. It does appear a bit sharper for stills on my Mark III, but not enough to justify the cost.

 

[cpreston]

I find the IS to be invaluable for events, even (or especially) on a tripod. When manually focusing or adjusting anything on the camera, the IS keeps the vibrations from being transmitted to the lens. Also, since most of my camera movement during events is panning, the Mode 2 is very useful. If you have both a lens prop and a follow focus, then IS might not be that important, but I wouldn't shoot on an unsupported lens over 135mm without IS if I thought I was going to have to make any adjustments after hitting record.

 

[mhood]

I find the IS to be invaluable for events, even (or especially) on a tripod. When manually focusing or adjusting anything on the camera, the IS keeps the vibrations from being transmitted to the lens. Also, since most of my camera movement during events is panning, the Mode 2 is very useful.

+1 with the f4 70-200 L.

 

[AndreeOnline]

That's not entirely true, an IS system could be developed to compensate smoothly for a pan.

Possibly. I'm describing my user experience with the current Canon L glass implementation.

Do you find IS useable for video? I'm having trouble justifying owning this lens. It does appear a bit sharper for stills on my Mark III, but not enough to justify the cost.

"Video" is a broad topic. I do think that it is useful in many situations. I do more corporate, documentary and event type stuff. I got into the 1Dc because I want one camera to do stills and video and I often move pretty quickly. Now, I do use a small rig, sliders and whatnot, but I also do handheld. For what I do, I wouldn't go without IS. For instance, I'm sticking with the 24-105 f4, even if I'd rather upgrade to the 24-70 2.8 II. I feel the IS is significant.

That said, I can see many scenarios in film and commercials where the shooting is done in a fashion that IS wouldn't matter.

But the quality of the mkII glass and the fact that panning can be de-coupled, the lens was a no-brainer for me. But I also do lots of stills. And since I shoot some aviation related stuff, the panning comes in hand there. Horses for courses.

 

[Policar]

Thanks, I'm wondering if my problem isn't different from what you're experiencing and it might be a genuine glitch, not just me being picky.

In some tests I like the IS just fine with video. I have used IS on my C100 with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and the 24-105mm f4 IS and had no problems with either lens. It definitely stabilizes footage well when handheld and I agree it helps reduce shake from pulling focus, the slight overcorrections are acceptable given the benefits it provides. However, when locked off on an object, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II system will sometimes repeatedly jump very dramatically in a set rhythmic pattern. It rarely happens, but when it does it's pretty extreme. Let me try to upload a clip.

I tried the lens against my old 70-200mm f2.8 L and yes, it is better optically, and wonderful for stills. I just want to know if there's a problem with my particular copy or if this is a common issue with longer lenses and IS.

 

[cowpunk52]

However, when locked off on an object, the system will sometimes repeatedly jump very dramatically in a set rhythmic pattern. It rarely happens, but when it does it's pretty extreme.

This is not how my 70-200 2.8 IS L II behaves, sounds glitchy to me.

 

[Policar]

This is not how my 70-200 2.8 IS L II behaves, sounds glitchy to me.

Thanks. I'll try to replicate it and upload a video. If I can't, even better.

It is indeed sharper than the 70-200mm; furthermore its aberrations are better controlled. It's a classy lens and I hope I can get it to behave properly.