Canon 70-200 2.8

M

mikcheck

Active member
Hello guys.

Do you think it's worth the investment in this lens in a crop sensor?

It would be for any type of video, including short films.

Thanks
 
The effective focal length of that lens on your APS-C camera is going to be 112-320mm. It would make it hard to shoot a lot of things, outside of landscapes or wildlife videos.

If you have few lenses, realistically, you may want to start by covering the basic focal lengths first: 35mm (wide) - 50mm (normal) - 85mm (close-up).

On a crop sensor camera, a couple of zoom lenses come to mind: Tamron 17-50mm Non-VC, Sigma 17-50mm or the Canon 17-55mm.
 
Thanks a lot for your reply. I'll then save that money and opt for other lenses.

The difference in focal length with crop sensor it's something that confuses me.

For example, i think i'm going to buy a Sigma 35mm 1.4 as i've seen really good reviews and videos about it. But in a crop sensor that would be something like 50mm, right? and a 50mm would be like 70mm?
 
Last edited:
You are correct. Your 35mm becomes an effective 56mm (35 x 1.6).

The crop factor is 1.6x on APS-C sized sensor cameras.
Iif you take a 50mm lens, and stick it on your APS-C camera, you end up with an effective 80mm (50 x 1.6).
 
Thank you.

So effectively, to cover the wide, normal and close up it can be for example something like this for a crop sensor: 19mm lens for a wide, 35mm for normal and 50mm for close up?
 
mikcheck said:
Thank you.

So effectively, to cover the wide, normal and close up it can be for example something like this for a crop sensor: 19mm lens for a wide, 35mm for normal and 50mm for close up?
Click to expand...

Yup!

By the way, focal length for coverage comes down to personal taste and your shooting environment. You don't have to have all of your bases covered, but at least get a lens that fits your need.

Personally, I love the look of 35-40mm in my projects - I could shoot an entire short at those lengths. And using it on a full frame gives me a fighting chance of pulling focus at bigger apertures (** wider lenses give you deeper depth of field - longer lenses give you smaller depth of field at comparable apertures).

Consider your shooting environment as well: longer focal lengths inside of tight spaces can get complicated, and limit shot choices.
 
On a good note...the 70-200 2.8 II is a fantastic lens on FF or APSC. You definitely would not regret it. You would most likely need a few others obviously...but this lens is definitely worth every penny. I have always loved the look of that one.
 
Have either of you guys ever used one?
The 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite possibly the best lens that Canon makes. Before you go poopoohing it based on some numbers, try one out. It ain't cheap, it ain't lightweight, but the image it gives you is simply amazing.
 
Have either of you guys ever used one?
The 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite possibly the best lens that Canon makes. Before you go poopoohing it based on some numbers, try one out. It ain't cheap, it ain't lightweight, but the image it gives you is simply amazing.​
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone is poopooing the lens. Just giving some practical advice before they spend $2.5k on a lens.​

 
Andrius Simutis said:
Have either of you guys ever used one?
The 70-200 2.8 IS II is quite possibly the best lens that Canon makes. Before you go poopoohing it based on some numbers, try one out. It ain't cheap, it ain't lightweight, but the image it gives you is simply amazing.
Click to expand...

Nobody dissed the lens - re-read the posts. I simply addressed the effective focal length of that lens on a crop-sensor camera.

I wouldn't shoot a short with just 112mm to 320mm - would you?
 
Its a great lens, but practically not the one that will be most of the time on your camera! If you have the money...sure...why not? But if you re on a budget the f4 version could be a great alternative...cheaper, smaller and lighter:)
 
mikcheck said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

They re for M4/3 systems, like the GH series for example...you need lenses that cover at least the APSC sensor of the 70D. That means EF or EF-S lenses from Canon or Canon mount lenses from the other companies...
 
Thank you lyrov. Didn't notice that, what a shame!

WebPLC at this moment i only own the Canon 70D with the kit 18-55 lens

I dont mind to spend $2000 for now to buy some lenses that could cover me well for any type of video.
 
WebPLC said:
Nobody dissed the lens - re-read the posts. I simply addressed the effective focal length of that lens on a crop-sensor camera.

I wouldn't shoot a short with just 112mm to 320mm - would you?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't shoot a short with just a super wide either. My 70-200 gets a lot of use on my C100 because people loooooove the way it looks in interviews. When you don't have a beautiful backdrop, the 70-200 2.8 can make just about anything look nice! It's not just a sports lens.
Back when I used to shoot photos full time for a living it was the most used lens in my arsenal.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
When you don't have a beautiful backdrop, the 70-200 2.8 can make just about anything look nice! It's not just a sports lens.
Back when I used to shoot photos full time for a living it was the most used lens in my arsenal.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And for the record, I to have used the 70-200mm (albeit the F4) on a C100/6D with great results.

But the main point I was trying to make is: you really have to choose a lens based on your needs. I think the OP has some homework to do, based off his latest posts :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top