C100: 70-200mm - f2.8 vs f4 IS vs Non

R

Rob Neidig

Member
So I am thinking about a 70-200mm lens for my C100. I would love to hear thoughts about the differences between the version that only goes to f4 vs. f2.8. The f4 is of course less expensive. Also with shooting video I assume the Image Stabilization becomes more important than with stills.

Primary use would be for corporate/commercial shoots in a little more controlled situations than reality or documentary. So I assume I could add a little light to make the difference of f4 vs. f2.8 possibly less of an issue.

Any info is appreciated. THANKS!
 
All of the 70-200mm versions are nice lenses. The f/4 IS is known to be sharper (at least wide open), but the 2.8II is a beloved favorite with "mojo".

I use the regular f/4 (without IS) mostly because it's lightweight and it's more than enough for video.
 
If you are going to go to f/4, you might as well drop another stop and get the 55-250 stm. Better IS, better video focus motor, stupid cheap, much lighter.
 
I can tell you that here in Houston (for whatever that's worth). The 2.8 II IS is pretty much one that everyone who owns any large sensor camera (not just the Canon C series) owns.
 
The f/4 vs f/2.8 really isn't a light issue with the 70-200. At f/2.8, the 70 -200 can keep just the face in focus for an interview on a close-up at a normal interview distance. Shoulders and back of hair are slightly out of focus. The background melts away. It's a certain look that almost every client loves and can't be reproduced as easily with the f/4.
 
I most often end up using my 70-200 2.8 IS II at F3.2 to F3.5 from about ten to twelve feet from camera to subject at about 80-85mm. Clients do like that look. If I had it to do all over again though, not sure I would have bought the IS version though. I end up using it on tripod with 15mm rods and a support where IS really isn't doing much. But I do use it handheld for shooting stills where IS really helps. But if I was only shooting video, I would probably get the 70-200 2.8 without the IS and save $650.00, I would rather have the speed and bokeh than the IS at F4 if I was shooting on tripod mostly. To me, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is too physically long and heavy to shoot on my C200 handheld much, so why buy IS when it isn't doing much for you on a tripod?
 
The 70-200 2.8 II is too damn heavy, and I really wish there were an alternative that produced as nice of an image because I HATE carrying the damn thing around.
 
puredrifting said:
To me, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is too physically long and heavy to shoot on my C200 handheld much, so why buy IS when it isn't doing much for you on a tripod?
Click to expand...
IS works great on a monopod, for those who like monopods (such as me). More stable than handheld, can get nice smooth shots at 200mm, or even 400mm with the 100-400 IS, while still retaining a small and mobile footprint that a tripod won't give you. Also is often helpful on a tripod if either the tripod isn't awesome (such as Manfrotto with a long focal length), or if there are vibrations (such as wind (like hurricanes!!!!) or people walking by on a wood flooring).

I believe the non-IS version is just a version I, and is not nearly as sharp as the IS version II.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top