Canon 70-200 - IS or no IS?

N

nickbeef

Active member
Looking to get a longer telephoto lens, so I'm looking at the popular Canon 70-200. Just wondering on people's opinion: for video use, how important is the image stabilization vs. no image stabilization? No IS is obviously cheaper, but I'm wondering that at such long focal lengths, I'll probably have the camera on a tripod anyways. So is the IS worth it? Or is it a must have?
 
Most of the advice I've seen says "go for IS". Even on sticks there are occasions where something can shake the floor, transmit vibrations to the lens and hose you. There are two IS modes, one corrects on horizontal and vertical axes, the other only in the direction perpendicular to movement (so I guess if you're panning it corrects only vertically, and vice versa for tilting). Plus of course if you ever go handheld with it. . .
 
F4 or F2.8? If the F4, go for the IS as the non-IS is an older design. IS is only for handheld work. If you know you will never take the camera off the tripod then go non-IS. You will miss it if you ever want to hand hold though.
 
If you are looking at the Canons I would look for the Mark II 2.8 versions with IS. It's not cheap but it's simply an amazing lens for the money and if you are patient you can find it used. Probably the best value out there in that range compared to Nikon and Sony offering (Which you can't even buy yet in e-mount). IS will make a big difference in this range and a nice telephoto in the 2.8 range will really separate your talent from the background and provide lovely bokeh. It will also hold its value nicely. If the price point it too big to bite off you can look at the F4 varient of this lens as well. I have the 70-200 F4 Sony FE and while it's a fine lens it doesn't hold a candle to the Canon.
 
Two of my clients and I call the 70-200 2.8 IS II "The Magic Lens", it is that good. Colors, contrast, non-existent CA, razor sharp, VERY flattering to people, that's what makes this lens "magic", it actually makes people look better than they do in real life. I don't own one yet, I periodically rent it from www.lensrentals.com and I am absolutely in love with it, I have used it for dozens of interviews, BTS, EPK and doc shoots and it just doesn't get any better unless you spend ten to twenty times as much for a cinema lens. Buy the 2.8 version, much better resale than the F4 versions. Yes, it's bigger and heavier but not really that bad and I do occasionally shoot handheld with it. Buy a lens support for your 15mm rods, I have heard of this lens doing bad things to mounts on EOS cameras unsupported. Get the IS, you will use it handheld I predict unless you are a boring shooter who lives on a tripod.
 
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I bought it shortly after it came out for my 5, before we ever thought about a Canon C300 coming out. Great lens. Worth every penny. I wish they would release a cine version, like the Zeiss, just not $20K like the Zeiss. I have used the GL Optics conversion and I don't think it looks as good, and the iris is backwards.

I will use IS handheld, but not shooting on stix, it's almost like chasing the shot 1/2 a second after it happens.
 
i cant be the only one that knows about the II mode on the IS. thats specifically what its for, I think, tripod use.
 
Oh hell maybe I'm wrong. The manual doesn't mention anything about tripod use except that "sometimes it may better to turn the IS off" when on a tripod. Oh well.
 
I own the first version of the 2.8L IS lens. And love it as well - agree with pure drifting - that it is very flattering to faces. If memory is correct, the only difference between it and the newer II model is that the newer one is able to focus closer. So - if you can still find the I version - you can save yourself some coin.
 
The MKII is a new design, so I think it is optically better than the MKI. Maybe put the latest f4 version with IS pretty close to the MKII f2.8 version optically speaking. I own the f4 IS now and had the MKI f2.8 and you can't go wrong with any of them!
 
Last edited:
markfpv said:
I own the first version of the 2.8L IS lens. And love it as well - agree with pure drifting - that it is very flattering to faces. If memory is correct, the only difference between it and the newer II model is that the newer one is able to focus closer. So - if you can still find the I version - you can save yourself some coin.
Click to expand...

I had the first version as well. BIG difference. Especially on a still camera(optics, AF, IS). I noticed it immediately with the first couple of shots. The GL Optics mod doesn't use the 70-200 2.8 II IS, and I think that's the reason I don't like it. Optically, it's not as good. I sold my v1 to a friend after he got a 300 and wanted a 70-200.
 
That is interesting. Before I bought my v1 - I had heard people say there was a big difference. And since I don't have both versions - I can't really say. But I researched before I bought and I've never had any issues and using v1 on still camera (5dii / iii ) and now the FS7
 
I used to rent the I version before the II came out so I have not compared them side by side. But the II feels like it is sharper and the IS is definitely more advanced. Most of the gear heads who write the reviews for the good still photography sites did side by side comparisons and they say the II is significantly improved over the I, but what do I know? Just for potential resale in a few years, I would buy the II.
 
There are super detailed tests you can find on various photography forums of the Mark 2 lens comparing it to the older one. Granted, that's on still cams, but it should sort of still apply to video.
 
Samuel H said:
70-200 f/2.8L IS - I vs II
And this is also interesting. And this.
Click to expand...

Great links Samuel, thanks. The copy to copy variation is disappointing but bears out what I have experienced over the years. I bought the Nikon 24-70 2.8, a $2k lens a couple of years ago. When I would look at my pictures, they all seemed really soft and mushy, not what you would expect from a $2k lens at all. I finally shot side by side tests with my $99.00 Nikon 50mm 1.8 D and my old Nikon 105mm 2.8 D Micro and both primes were MUCH sharper. The 24-70 had great colors and contrast but looked like mush. I sent it back to nikon twice for collimation and calibration and to see if there was anything "wrong" with it. Nikon service would send it back with a vague note that it was "in spec". I promptly sold it. But I know that other Nikon 24-70 2.8 lenses I have rented and that friends have look superb, I just got a bad copy. If you are going to shell our $2k for a new lens, it pays to buy from a retailer with a liberal return policy. Test your new lens and make sure that it is up to snuff because as these tests bear out, there is a LOT of copy to copy variation.
 
puredrifting said:
Great links Samuel, thanks. The copy to copy variation is disappointing but bears out what I have experienced over the years. I bought the Nikon 24-70 2.8, a $2k lens a couple of years ago. When I would look at my pictures, they all seemed really soft and mushy, not what you would expect from a $2k lens at all. I finally shot side by side tests with my $99.00 Nikon 50mm 1.8 D and my old Nikon 105mm 2.8 D Micro and both primes were MUCH sharper. The 24-70 had great colors and contrast but looked like mush. I sent it back to nikon twice for collimation and calibration and to see if there was anything "wrong" with it. Nikon service would send it back with a vague note that it was "in spec". I promptly sold it. But I know that other Nikon 24-70 2.8 lenses I have rented and that friends have look superb, I just got a bad copy. If you are going to shell our $2k for a new lens, it pays to buy from a retailer with a liberal return policy. Test your new lens and make sure that it is up to snuff because as these tests bear out, there is a LOT of copy to copy variation.
Click to expand...

Yep. I've read articles/posts by still guys that will buy multiple copies of a lens and find the "best" one and send the rest back or will keep buying and returning until they get one they're happy with. And the funny thing is, it seems like it's the more expensive lenses, like Canon L lenses, that you hear about things like lots of copy to copy variation, whereas the cheaper stuff seems to have more uniform performance. Of course some of it could be that the cheaper stuff is mostly bought by "consumers" and they're not as picky or don't know the difference.
 
Run&Gun said:
Yep. I've read articles/posts by still guys that will buy multiple copies of a lens and find the "best" one and send the rest back or will keep buying and returning until they get one they're happy with. And the funny thing is, it seems like it's the more expensive lenses, like Canon L lenses, that you hear about things like lots of copy to copy variation, whereas the cheaper stuff seems to have more uniform performance. Of course some of it could be that the cheaper stuff is mostly bought by "consumers" and they're not as picky or don't know the difference.
Click to expand...

I did this years back when I was in the market for a 70-200mm. I went to a local camera shop and tried out every 70-200 they had in stock. It's hard to believe but there were variations between copies. In the end I purchased a Sigma 70-200mm which I still own today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top