C100: canon 70-200 2.8 IS version 1 for c100?

J

Josh Bass

Veteran
Hi. having trouble finding anyone online talking about how the 70-200 2.8 version 1 looks for video on something like a c100. i understand the 2 is much nicer, but im wondering how well that difference translates to the c100. thanks.
 
The version I is beautiful while the version II is slightly beautifuller.
They're both great lenses, so I guess the question is how much of a difference for how much money. I think the main difference is that the II has better IS.
The 70-200 2.8 IS II is hands down my favorite "photo" lens. The 70-200 2.8 IS I would be my second.
 
The IS on the version II is very quiet. I seem to remember the IS on the version 1 being a bit louder? Audible on my camera's scratch tracks if I recall correctly. Can someone confirm or deny?
 
thanks. wouldnt use it for photos (dont do stills). i dont THINK the noisy is would be a problem...maybe it it picked up on a boom or lav on talent from 6-8 feet away during an interview or something?
 
No, my recollection was it was not that loud. Just loud enough for an on-camera mic to pick up some mechanical sounds.
 
i cant imagine that would be a really big deal. MAYBE if i were shooting a series of speakers presenting and was forced by cirumstance to use a shotgun on cam rather than mic them properly. not a situation i ever WANT to be in but has happened a few times.
 
We had this very discussion not to long ago. I have an 70-200 f4, and replaced it on the same shoot with the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II, and saw a remarkable difference in Sharpness and over all image quality. I was told this wasn't possible because the C100 only has 2000 pixels or so, and just use cheap lenses.

I recorded a guitarist with an external recorder, had the C100 on a motorized Second shooter, since I never used the focus after I set up I never heard it focusing. I do believe some of the newer lenses sense when they are on a tripod, and some don't...... I guess the 2.8 II does, otherwise turn off the IS. The motor on the Second Shooter was audible..... the guitarist could hear it from 15 feet away, but the Cardiod mics never picked up any sound from in back of them.

I really can't understand the issue about it making focus noise. I don't think a good shot gun mic is gonna pick it up, but if it did then I would ask what the hell are you using the IS for in the first place? Doesn't anyone use a follow focus!

Here is the video comparing various Canon 70-200 lens...... the 2.8 II is the sharpest in my book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au1P3_UCMIM
 
Thanks, keep in mind I'm talking about the the 2.8 but the older version. I'm not sure I understand some of the rest of your post regarding IS and follow focuses. . .they're for totally different purposes. If you're suggesting a shotgun would also pick up follow focus noise, every one I've seen, even cheap ones, are whisper (sub-whisper!) quiet. Or did you mean AUTO-focus? IS from what I've read is recommended EVEN WHEN ON A TRIPOD because all the little judders will still translate into the lens (any time you touch the cam on a lighter tripod, people walking by, etc.). There are two IS modes, one for handheld, one for sticks (that doesn't correct horizontally).

Looked at the video, problem there is that the are using stills to compare them. . .fine if you're talking about stills, I'm talking about video. A lower res image may not show lens differences that you could see in a 5000x4000 (or whatever) still photo, making those differences basically negligible.
 
Last edited:
I recently rented three of the 70-200 2.8 IS II with three C100s. All I can say is that lens has a special magic that I have yet to find on any other lens, even the I version, the II is superb. I have all of the focal lengths between 70-200 covered with prines as well as a good chunk of it with my 18-135 STM IS and I still lust after owning that lens constantly.
 
Last edited:
Aarrrrghhhh. I remembered reading that thread but it never popped up in Google searches (and the search on this site is super weird for me. . .results never make any sense). Hell. Maybe I'll just rent it forever.

I wonder can you buy it on a payment plan, like some camcorders?
 
Josh Bass said:
Thanks, keep in mind I'm talking about the the 2.8 but the older version. I'm not sure I understand some of the rest of your post regarding IS and follow focuses. . .they're for totally different purposes. If you're suggesting a shotgun would also pick up follow focus noise, every one I've seen, even cheap ones, are whisper (sub-whisper!) quiet. Or did you mean AUTO-focus? IS from what I've read is recommended EVEN WHEN ON A TRIPOD because all the little judders will still translate into the lens (any time you touch the cam on a lighter tripod, people walking by, etc.). There are two IS modes, one for handheld, one for sticks (that doesn't correct horizontally).

Looked at the video, problem there is that the are using stills to compare them. . .fine if you're talking about stills, I'm talking about video. A lower res image may not show lens differences that you could see in a 5000x4000 (or whatever) still photo, making those differences basically negligible.
Click to expand...

Just responding to the previous concerns about the IS being noisy. But yea you are right the IS and Auto focus are two different things...... but they both make noise. I know there are some lenses that don't need the the auto focus to be be turned off while on a tripod, I can only imagine the f2.8 II is one of them?

About the video I linked. Fair enough, but the photography comparison does show it is a sharper lens, and all I can say is when after shooting for days with the f4, and my neighbor showed up with the f2.8 II I saw a dramatic almost magical transformation in the image, as Puredrifting has experienced. It made me lust after this lens, even though according to the pixel peepers I shouldn't have been able to notice anything.

Don't have any experience the the f2.8 MK I..... but I've heard it's comparable to the f4 in sharpness.
 
Canon have great lens, but sometimes have some sample variation in sharpness in QC.
I tested 3 brand news 24-70 L 2.8, and one was terrible on a corner, the other 2 was good but one was a gem...
Try the lens in a flat wall with textures and peep the corners in 200% scale on photoshop or premiere - full aperture f2.8 and f5.6, after that aperture all lens are great...
 
puredrifting said:
I recently rented three of the 70-200 2.8 IS II with three C100s. All I can say is that lens has a special magic that I have yet to find on any other lens, even the I version, the II is superb. I have all of the focal lengths between 70-200 covered with prines as well as a good chunk of it with my 18-135 STM IS and I still lust after owning that lens constantly.
Click to expand...

Next time you get ahold of a 70-200, put it up against your 18-135STM @ 135/8 and tell me what you see. $500 vs. $2000- your choice...
 
PedroAquiles said:
Canon have great lens, but sometimes have some sample variation in sharpness in QC.
I tested 3 brand news 24-70 L 2.8, and one was terrible on a corner, the other 2 was good but one was a gem...
Try the lens in a flat wall with textures and peep the corners in 200% scale on photoshop or premiere - full aperture f2.8 and f5.6, after that aperture all lens are great...
Click to expand...

Is this true only of Canon lenses or all lenses?
 
My experience its in Canon lenses,
The big brands make thousands of lens each year, they put great quality and control in the process but even a slight misalignment of microns of mm can produce a slight less sharpness in one corner or other, but that pass in quality.

Here is a great article about the sample variation on the lens, and sometimes is severe even in a 2000$ brand new L glass...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens
 
Michael Thames said:
Is this true only of Canon lenses or all lenses?
Click to expand...

Could be but we are talking about the Canon 70-200. Process variation is wider than you all think apparently. I too tested a few 70-200 L II recently and had to take the best of the lot which still wasn't up to my standard. Brick wall test never lies.
 
control4userguy said:
Next time you get ahold of a 70-200, put it up against your 18-135STM @ 135/8 and tell me what you see. $500 vs. $2000- your choice...
Click to expand...

Can't speak for Puredrifting, but the 24-105 is a better lens than the 18-135 and it's only $50 more. Barrel distortion on the 18-135 is pretty atrocious. You also can't really compare a constant 2.8 with a 3.6 to 5.6. The f5.6 becomes basically unusable in low light conditions. From personal experience using both a 24-105 and the 70-1200 f2.8 MKII there is simply no comparison. Better contrast, better sharpness, and better low light performance.
 
Michael Thames said:
Can't speak for Puredrifting, but the 24-105 is a better lens than the 18-135 and it's only $50 more. Barrel distortion on the 18-135 is pretty atrocious. You also can't really compare a constant 2.8 with a 3.6 to 5.6. The f5.6 becomes basically unusable in low light conditions. From personal experience using both a 24-105 and the 70-1200 f2.8 MKII there is simply no comparison. Better contrast, better sharpness, and better low light performance.
Click to expand...

Hi Michael,
I have a 18-135mm IS a 24-70 f2.8 a 70-200f2.8 IS II and a 17-40mm, they are my workhorses.

The 24-105mm i tested, and i don´t considered to be a L-Glass lens, the barrel distortion and vignette its huge, and lose almost 1 stop of light beaten the 24mm and the 105mm, the IS is outdated by 2 stops from the new generation of 18-135mm STM

Not a statement...just a opinion based on samples i used.

PS: the 24-105 its not f2.8, its f4...and not very constant...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top