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

Wow, did not realize the 18-135 was the 24-105's equal in image quality. That's kind of sad in a way. If the v2 of the 70-200 is really that much better I may just rent it when I need it or look at payment plans. I also see version 1, even used, is not nearly as "cheap" as I had thought.
 
Last edited:
Michael Thames said:
I don't understand this. I have a 24-105, and I have a 70-200 f4 IS...... the 70-200 f4 IS, you really can't complain about, I mean it's as good as it gets. The 24-105 yea, it doesn't quite compare with the 70-200. Why the hell people stick with the 24-105 after they have experienced the 70 -200 f2.8 IS mk II is beyondd rational thought. it really begins to sound like you are just disgruntled about something...... I don't get it!
Click to expand...
For many shooters there is not that many options besides the 24-105 and the 18-135 for run n gun. I would like to buy the Canon 24-70 2.8 mark II (for situations where my Sigma 18-35 is just too wide or a 70-200 is not wide enough) to get that WOW factor the 70-200 2.8 has, but it is out of my budget for now. Also, it doesn't have IS and has limited range compared to 24-105 and the 18-135. Different lenses for different situation. There is the Tamron 24-70 2.8, but the focus ring turns the "wrong" way.
 
Doug_EX said:
For many shooters there is not that many options besides the 24-105 and the 18-135 for run n gun. I would like to buy the Canon 24-70 2.8 mark II (for situations where my Sigma 18-35 is just too wide or a 70-200 is not wide enough) to get that WOW factor the 70-200 2.8 has, but it is out of my budget for now. Also, it doesn't have IS and has limited range compared to 24-105 and the 18-135. Different lenses for different situation. There is the Tamron 24-70 2.8, but the focus ring turns the "wrong" way.
Click to expand...

Well yea, I'm not a run and gunner..... so yer right...... I keep forgetting that. On the other hand being a person who has no experience as a professional videographer....... I assume most cinematographers use their gear on some kinda stabilization device.
 
^I have no idea what all others do but my last paying gig forced me up & down a huge cruise ship. In & out of the engine rooms via near-vertical staircases, etc.. Stabilization device?? Yeah, myself. IS is the device!
 
Michael Thames said:
I don't understand this. I have a 24-105, and I have a 70-200 f4 IS...... the 70-200 f4 IS, you really can't complain about, I mean it's as good as it gets. The 24-105 yea, it doesn't quite compare with the 70-200. Why the hell people stick with the 24-105 after they have experienced the 70 -200 f2.8 IS mk II is beyondd rational thought. it really begins to sound like you are just disgruntled about something...... I don't get it!
Click to expand...

Disgruntled? Paying a premium for something is fine. Having to wade through samples for a good one is not. Ebrahim said it well. 18-135 won't give the same sharpness but the margin is much smaller than you might think. So, does this premium for an L lens equate to "small margin" of increased IQ? Like I said, I'm keeping the 70-200 but choose not to drink the Koolaid.

Perhaps your post should have been directed at the OP. He may want to look at the F4 as it's far less $$ than a V2 2.8. Still have IS to carry you, just not the same DOF.
 
Michael Thames said:
I assume most cinematographers use their gear on some kinda stabilization device.
Click to expand...
Well, when your shots are planned (and you have the time), than yes. But many docs are shot partly handheld. When you have to react fast in situations that you don't control, often a steadicam or even a tripod is the last thing you want. Sometimes you have seconds to react...just putting the camera on a tripod and leveling the head will make you miss an important shot.
 
control4userguy said:
^I have no idea what all others do but my last paying gig forced me up & down a huge cruise ship. In & out of the engine rooms via near-vertical staircases, etc.. Stabilization device?? Yeah, myself. IS is the device!
Click to expand...
yep! I know what you mean. In those situation, you carry 2 piece of equipment, your camera and your body.
 
control4userguy said:
^I have no idea what all others do but my last paying gig forced me up & down a huge cruise ship. In & out of the engine rooms via near-vertical staircases, etc.. Stabilization device?? Yeah, myself. IS is the device!
Click to expand...

Oh man, that would make me sea sick......

I'm looking at getting one of these...... and forget about all those fancy lenses and cameras....... for run and gun maybe this is all we need? Seriously!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...plus_3_axis_smartphone_gimbal_stabilizer.html
 
Doug_EX said:
Well, when your shots are planned (and you have the time), than yes. But many docs are shot partly handheld. When you have to react fast in situations that you don't control, often a steadicam or even a tripod is the last thing you want. Sometimes you have seconds to react...just putting the camera on a tripod and leveling the head will make you miss an important shot.
Click to expand...

I need to loosen up..... everything I do is on a damn tripod, or a slider.
 
control4userguy said:
I spend on equipment like no other- it's not about price, as for me, with this lens. As an individual, I don't have the time to hunt for a good sample other than combing through the 5 or 6 on the shelf at the local camera emporium. I don't think anyone here mentioned reliability- it's, as you hinted, an issue of landing a unit actually falling well below Canon's cutpoints. I bet, given enough time, I could find a Tamron 70-200 that actually had super power too...

OP, I don't think your going to get your answer here. Nor, will YouTube tell you what to do. Do like a lot do and rent the new one and compare with something else you might have at standard conditions and go from there. My criteria, beyond FL, was sharpness far above an STM lens and IS that helped me at 1/48 shutter speed. That was it. And, because I spend everything I ever earn, I wound-up with a V2 and not a V1. Am I a dumb consumer?
Click to expand...

No, you aren't a dumb consumer, the V2 is a significantly better lens than the V1. As far as how important that greater quality is for video though, that's debatable. Personally, if I buy one, I will retire my 5D MKII body to full time stills and will sell off my Nikon gear, the lens is that good. I use Canon for video and Nikon for stills as I go back decades being a Nikon shooter. But if I invest $2k into this lens, it will get used for both video and stills. I am in love with the images it produces, they just look so much better than any other images my C100 or C300 can make unless I rent cinema lenses. But I could never afford to own cinema lenses, but I could afford to own the 70-200 2.8 V2

It's weird, I have shot a LOT more handheld this year than I have shot in a long time, the 18-135 STM IS is a great run and gun lens. It's not without it's flaws but when you are in a hurry and need good stabilization and the right zoom range for following people, it's perfect. I wish it was fixed aperture at 2.8 and I wish it wasn't focus by wire but other than those limitations, it's pretty great. The DPAF works really well with it and the focus is silent.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I was all set to get the f4 but then all my local colleagues, when I asked them, kept talking about how they really liked 2.8 for the extra shallow DOF, some mentioning having been saddled with the f4 by circumstance and regretting it on shoots.
 
anyone messed with the sigma 2.8 70-200? i know there are issues with the autofocus with the c100 but other than that?
 
well theres another thread on here where users report AF only works while its wide open (2.8). other than that, no AF on that lens with the c100
 
Josh Bass said:
Yeah, I was all set to get the f4 but then all my local colleagues, when I asked them, kept talking about how they really liked 2.8 for the extra shallow DOF, some mentioning having been saddled with the f4 by circumstance and regretting it on shoots.
Click to expand...

I have the f4 and really love that lens, very light and fantastic sharpness and contrast compared to my 24-105, mostly I see the difference in photos, but see the difference also in video. Those f4's are so cheap these days, I bought mine from a guy here in town for $800 a couple years ago. The non IS goes for around $400.

You will see a huge difference between the F4 and the f2.8 V2 in video, at least I did...... and I'm really dreaming about getting one, but my next door neighbor has one and said I can borrow it anytime! I could post a couple videos I did shooting the same scene with both lenses and you can really see the difference....... but I all ready did that a few weeks ago.
 
Doug_EX said:
Of course, for the type of video you make, a good looking image is more important than IS.
Click to expand...

True, but I hate to spend a lot of money on any lens without IS. I would love to get the 24-70 f2.8 V2 but can't justify that kind a money with no IS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top