C100: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM vs. Canon f/2.8 IS II USM 70-200 2.8 for vid

puredrifting

puredrifting

Major Contributor
Hi all:

I shoot on movie and tv sets a lot, mainly behind the scenes footage. I usually rent the 70-200 2.8 and have been happy with it but sometimes find that 200mm, even on an S35 sensor, is not enough. It's often my job to stay out of the way while still capturing good looking footage of the actors, director, cinematographer, crew. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is a magic lens, it really makes superb images, sharp, detailed, incredible color. On certain shoots where I needed longer focal length, I have rented the 2X Canon focal adapter. The images, even with the 70-200 2.8's superb look, kind of went to hell with the adapter. The images became distinctly softer and mushy.

Has anyone used the new Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM with a C100 or C300? Yes, it is slower, obviously. Sometimes I need the speed of the 2.8 but I feel that both the C100 and C300 offer acceptable looks if I crank up the ISO to 2500 or 3200 so I can probably make the slower speed of the lens work in most situations. I am wondering if the 100-400 still offers that magical look, that insane sharpness and superb color and contrast rendition when compared to the 70-200? I will end up renting it a few times before I will consider buying one but I thought I would ask to see if any of you are using this newer lens?
 
Last edited:
Instead of a longer lens you can purchase Canon T3i/600D which has electronic zoom, when up to 3x zoom it takes a small portion of the sensor, without any degradation of image quality.

(You can PayPal me a contribution for a fraction of the money I just saved you …) :smile:
 
I have the 100-400 (first version) and I like it very much. I don't use it on a daily basis but when I need to get close ups without being ''in the way'', it's my go to lens. The 100-400 II seems to be better in every way compared to the first version. So, I wouldn't hesitate if I were you.
 
Joshua_G said:
Instead of a longer lens you can purchase Canon T3i/600D which has electronic zoom, when up to 3x zoom it takes a small portion of the sensor, without any degradation of image quality.

(You can PayPal me a contribution for a fraction of the money I just saved you …) :smile:
Click to expand...

Funny you mention it, I have a T3i and have used that feature. But the T3i with any lens is not quite in the league of the C100/C300 I need to use for client work, although it is impressive for the money.
 
Doug_EX said:
I have the 100-400 (first version) and I like it very much. I don't use it on a daily basis but when I need to get close ups without being ''in the way'', it's my go to lens. The 100-400 II seems to be better in every way compared to the first version. So, I wouldn't hesitate if I were you.
Click to expand...

What about the sharpness Doug? Have you shot with the newer 70-200 2.8 IS II? That lens is incredible, it gives me a look that none of my existing lenses can give, even at the exact same focal length. It is one of the few zooms I have ever used that I feel is as sharp if not sharper than a prime. I think I will be renting the 100-400 out a few times to see if I like it. If it is a total winner, I may buy it this year.
 
The sharpness is pretty good. I only use the 70-200 II once, so I'm not the best to judge. But apparently, the 100-400 II is noticeably sharper than the 100-400 I. So yes rent it to be sure before buying it. But for me, the 100-400 is more than good enough, so I can imagine that the 100-400 II is a excellent lens.
 
Go read the reviews on B&H...I think it will convince you. Here are 3: Let me just say that I am using my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II lens a lot less than I did before acquiring the new Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens. Before I purchased this lens about two months ago, I had reservations about not having a fixed maximum aperture. Not any more. This lens is tack sharp at all focal lengths,has beautiful color, contrast and bokeh and I totally love it. I can see that I will be using this lens for much more of my work than I though I would before I got it. If you can afford it, buy it. You won't need any other lens for this focal range. Sold my ef 400mm f/5.6 to buy this. Reviews and a friend who bought one convinced me that this was an excellent lens, but I was still reluctant to be limited again by the f/5.6 at 400mm. Several weeks of shooting with it have convinced me that this is a great lens for taking many types of creative photographs of people, found still-life details previously beyond reach, and, in the right light, wildlife. The minimum focal distance of 3.2', the zoom range, the IS, and the compact length make me very happy to have upgraded from the prime 400mm f/5.6. If you like daytime street photography, catching people acting naturally, this is a reasonable walk-around lens. Really appreciate the zoom tension adjustment. Most importantly, the IQ is wonderful with correct exposure: bright colors, sharp focus, and a special luminance I've seen in other recent Canon lenses (eg 16-35mm f/4 IS). After 17 years, new lenses like: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, Canon EF 300mm and 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM, you can only expect something special coming up from Canon. Competing with Third Party brands that have only improving their arsenals is not easy to keep up on the top of the charts. This is an absolutely "GEM".... built quality, image quality, the engineering that went towards this lens is absolutely amazing... Air Sphere Coating technology, Fluorite element that is only found in very expensive pieces of glass, Fluorine coating, New Advanced Image Stabilization with 3 modes, outstanding weather sealing, new rotation type zoom, innovative hood, etc.... WOW! that's a lot going for this lens! No wonder there is a current shortage of stock! US, Europe, Australia, etc..... It's a NON-BRAINER IMHO!
 
I used it on a wedding with the C100 recently and loved it. Large Indian wedding so the camera was very far back from the bride and groom, but could zoom in far and looked really sharp. Might be able to post a screen grab in a few days if I have some time.
 
Use it all the time on my C100 when I need to get a MCU on a speaker from the FAAAAAR back of a conference center.

It rocks.


Bought it 2nd hand.
 
The new 100-400 IS II is a great lens. Sharper than the old one. I have checked but don't own it currently. The moment I am able to sell off my older 100-400, I will buy it.

I extensively use the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens, even with 2x II TC. The quality with 2xII is same as the 100-400 IS (older one). This time I was forced to use the 100-400 (older) with a 1.4x II TC. The files are bit soft for my liking, as I mostly use the much sharper 400 f2.8 IS prime lens. However, I missed my OConnor head and tripod and was forced to do with a gitzo. Hence used the 100-400 IS older lens with a 1.4x TC. Here is the result https://youtu.be/tqocpyGA3GA

I think you can go for the new 100-400 IS II lens. If you are not zooming in or zooming out, then the variable aperture lens is not a problem. f5.6 is no longer a problem in most of the cases due to high ISO abilities in the Canon cinema series.
 
+1 on all the very positive reviews.

If I was buying new, I'd get the MkII simply because it zooms internally. My only beef with my MkI is that it trombones in and out.

Love the image, though, and it gets used every time I want to get big CUs, while trying to keep a discrete distance.
 
bengiles said:
+1 on all the very positive reviews.

If I was buying new, I'd get the MkII simply because it zooms internally. My only beef with my MkI is that it trombones in and out.

Love the image, though, and it gets used every time I want to get big CUs, while trying to keep a discrete distance.
Click to expand...


To not confuse anyone, the 100-400 mkii does not zoom internally like the 70-200 does, for example. The barrel extend pretty much like the 24-105 and 24-70 does.

Personally, I really like the "push and pull" system. You can leave your hand on the focus ring at all time, which is pretty handy when you need to get subjects in focus rapidly.
 
Doug_EX said:
To not confuse anyone, the 100-400 mkii does not zoom internally like the 70-200 does, for example. The barrel extend pretty much like the 24-105 and 24-70 does.
Click to expand...

Sorry - my mistake.

I was under the impression they had made it like the 70-200, and was therefore considering upgrading one day. However, an 24-105-style extending barrel doesn't offer an improvement over the trombone design, for my money.
 
bengiles said:
Sorry - my mistake. I was under the impression they had made it like the 70-200, and was therefore considering upgrading one day. However, an 24-105-style extending barrel doesn't offer an improvement over the trombone design, for my money.
Click to expand...
No but the optical quality and IS are supposedly quite better on the mkII.
 
I am going to an airshow in September, I will be renting it to see how it works for capturing footage of the jets, etc. Not a bad rental, $76.00 for four days.
 
I will prefer to use a x1.4 or x2 if I need that extra range, I have been thinking about buying the 100-400 since it came out. I have read through most Vs test there is around. I have decided to leave it till I really have that extra money.

Except that you are using a 5Ds for photo or you need a little bit faster Auto-focus.

1.4X is impossible to tell any difference, 2X is difficult to tell the different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top