Canon 70-200- Do I need IS for handheld work?

F

fredsoffa

Member
Very happy with my 5D. Have a slew of lenses, mostly on the cheap, mostly Olympus, including the little desired (read that as being cheaply acquired Olympus 65-200). While I love these lenses, I do find myself needing additional f-stop, and now I'm leaning towards getting a Canon 70-200 f2.8. The real question is - do I need IS? Should it even be on for video? I shoot a lot handheld, if I was on sticks I presume I would turn IS off anyway.

So the real question is - does anyone know and has anyone done a specific test of 70-200's with and without IS?

Thanks and looking forward to the discussion.
 
Don't know of any test specifically with the Canon 70-200/2.8 with/without IS but Vincent Laforet did one with the 100/2.8 Macro with/without IS. The difference was astonishing, even shaking the camera ridiculously! Keep in mind, though, that the IS on the 100 Macro is much better than the IS on any other Canon lens currently on the market including the newer 70-200/2.8 II.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is heavy. Even just for photography, I try to at least use a monopod.

I'll do some tests when I get home from work this afternoon and will post the results this weekend.
 
Thanks so much. I reading that to mean that the IS was an extreme positive on the 100 macro. Realistically much of my work needs to be handheld. I've tried using a monopod on a few occasions, with say a Nikon 135 f2, also an extremely heavy lens, with unsatisfactory results. Better in my estimation to float with the camera and be natural than to fight to be stable. Then I'm on a tripod, no questions asked.

Suppose I should just go to my local store and pop the lenses on my body and do a 30 second test and be done with it. Never have had an issue with my Canon 24-105 f4, but that's has IS and I never even think about turning it off, or should I say, never even thought about that it had IS at all until now. Will do quick test with that lens also.
 
I'm converting the footage into FCP via 5DtoRGB now but it's safe to say that IS is a must. Going to watch a movie with my wife but will try to upload a simple edit before I go to bed tonight.
 
I don't know if I still have the footage but I had 70-200 F4L w/ IS and w/o for a while and I saw huge improvements in video stability at 70mm and 200mm. It made me know for a fact that I will never get such a long lens w/o IS, it's just not worth it.

Also, while I am fond of faster glass, the IQ is nominal between the F4 models and F2.8 models, but the price difference is huge. So if you are looking to save, I would get a F4L IS, it's cheaper then the NonIS F2.8! and smaller which is nice.
 
Last edited:
This is a quick and dirty little test I completed yesterday evening to contrast the difference between using image stabilization (IS) and not using it when shooting hand held video. The test was done with a Canon 5D Mark II and two different lenses:
* Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens

There are basically four sets of with/without tests in this video (in the following order):
* Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens on Zacuto Rapid Fire
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens @ 100mm on Rapid Fire
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens @ 100mm Handheld
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens @ 200mm Handheld


Bottom line: As Kegan states above, always use IS when shooting hand held.
 
Last edited:
natums said:
I don't know if I still have the footage but I had 70-200 F4L w/ IS and w/o for a while and I saw huge improvements in video stability at 70mm and 200mm. It made me know for a fact that I will never get such a long lens w/o IS, it's just not worth it.

Also, while I am fond of faster glass, the IQ is nominal between the F4 models and F2.8 models, but I fee like the price difference is huge. So if you are looking to save, I would get a F4L IS, it's cheaper then the NonIS F2.8! and smaller which is nice.
Click to expand...

The f/4 IS is a killer lens, different from its non-IS f/4 sibling in more than just IS. If you don't absolutely need 2.8, it's the one to get.
 
Good to see the example on video, it is definitely noticeable. I use the Canon 70-200 L series lens WO/IS a lot but it is mostly on a tripod and no issues at all. I've used it sparingly off the shoulder, does anyone now what effect panning the camera at 24p with IS on has on the image?
 
Well, wow. Thanks for taking the time to do that test. I did a quickie test for myself right after this, being motivated here, with my 24-105mm f4, and just to the eye there was a clear difference with the IS on. With IS on there was more stability, no doubt about it. That was a brilliant test you did, very clear. Thanks!
 
Am very afraid that I want, need, and will love the 2.8 in interview settings. Now to confess, I have an Olympus 65-200mm that I feel is an under loved lens. I just bought one for my friend for 49 dollars. So my primary hunt is for a very soft background, very soft, and also, yes, I find myself over and over fighting light situations where having that stop seems critical. Wish I was happy with f4.
 
fredsoffa said:
Am very afraid that I want, need, and will love the 2.8...
Click to expand...

Ha! Ha! It is indeed a beautiful lens that produces great bokeh. I basically traded an HMC-150 for mine and don't regret it.

From what I understand, the only difference between the I and II versions is the flourite lens. Not sure how much of a difference it makes but if you can find a I (about $1k less than the II) then you might have a winner. The IS is the same.
 
coddida said:
Ha! Ha! It is indeed a beautiful lens that produces great bokeh. I basically traded an HMC-150 for mine and don't regret it.

From what I understand, the only difference between the I and II versions is the flourite lens. Not sure how much of a difference it makes but if you can find a I (about $1k less than the II) then you might have a winner. The IS is the same.
Click to expand...

That's good to know also. Not all upgrades are equal. Happy to trade my DVX100 for the 100A, but here, I would rather have the grand.
 
fredsoffa said:
Am very afraid that I want, need, and will love the 2.8 in interview settings. Now to confess, I have an Olympus 65-200mm that I feel is an under loved lens. I just bought one for my friend for 49 dollars. So my primary hunt is for a very soft background, very soft, and also, yes, I find myself over and over fighting light situations where having that stop seems critical. Wish I was happy with f4.
Click to expand...

I've heard of a few people using telephoto lenses on the wide end as portrait. I would rather get a 50-85mm range prime or a 24-105 or 70 L. What advantages do you see from using a telephoto?
 
natums said:
I've heard of a few people using telephoto lenses on the wide end as portrait. I would rather get a 50-85mm range prime or a 24-105 or 70 L. What advantages do you see from using a telephoto?
Click to expand...

Not just a few people, but professional and serious portraiture photographers everywhere in the world.

The distinct characteristics of a telephone lens of 135mm or 200mm (vs normal lenses or those 85mm) are 1) easier to achieve very shallow DoF with nicely blurred background at any given aperture, and 2) if you choose to include the background in your portrait, easier to avoid unwanted objects in the background and have desirable distant objects appear larger as compared to your subject.

As a result, it's much easier to achieve a dreamy effect with, say, 70-200/f2.8 at 200mm than, say, 24-70/f2.8 at 70mm. Fashion photographers may even choose to use 100-400mm zoom or 300mm prime for full body portrait shots, achieving results not possible with walk-around non-portrait lenses such as 50mm prime or 24-70.
 
I get the advantages of that, I guess I just see the portrait styles with such a zoom are so irregular as you need ALOT of space, I rarely find myself with enough space to shoot above 100mm. But that is also the nature of a lot of the work I do I guess.
 
the test video on the prior page says it all. great video for those wondering about IS.

when i originally bought my 5DmkII i could only get with 24-105mm f4. didnt really have an interest in that lens but got it anyway. shortly after getting that system i found that lens to be very very useful because of its versatile focal length and mostly becsause of its IS. its not as sharp wide open as many of my other fast canon lenses but it is still very good for video. i also have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS L version I. very rarely do i ever use this without a tripod but the few times i have thank God for its IS. the newere 70-200mm seems a lot sharper wide open than the version I does. i dont plan on upgrading anytime soon though, especially for the price they are asking for version II.

IS is a must for video IMO.

david
 
henryqiu said:
Not just a few people, but professional and serious portraiture photographers everywhere in the world.

The distinct characteristics of a telephone lens of 135mm or 200mm (vs normal lenses or those 85mm) are 1) easier to achieve very shallow DoF with nicely blurred background at any given aperture, and 2) if you choose to include the background in your portrait, easier to avoid unwanted objects in the background and have desirable distant objects appear larger as compared to your subject.

As a result, it's much easier to achieve a dreamy effect with, say, 70-200/f2.8 at 200mm than, say, 24-70/f2.8 at 70mm. Fashion photographers may even choose to use 100-400mm zoom or 300mm prime for full body portrait shots, achieving results not possible with walk-around non-portrait lenses such as 50mm prime or 24-70.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I really disagree with this statement. SHooting at 300mm for a full body shot? You must live in the mountains, because trying to achieve a shot like that in the city is almost impossible.
 
Telephoto in intv

Telephoto in intv

natums said:
I've heard of a few people using telephoto lenses on the wide end as portrait. I would rather get a 50-85mm range prime or a 24-105 or 70 L. What advantages do you see from using a telephoto?
Click to expand...

I cannot tell you how many times I have been asked for the longest lens I have in my case. Or how many times I have literally been sent to the back corner of the room in a multi-camera setup and told, grab it from there. Once I made the mistake of bringing a 200mm offbrand lens, and being stuck on it all day long. I have the 24-105 lens, and it is an excellent lens. Easy to zoom, even on air moves you can try, so I know the lens. However, it's not long enough. I also have a 180mm 2.8 Olympus, an excellent lens, but you miss not being able to zoom on a TV intv. Just that little push --
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top