C100: Canon lens question: IS or Non-IS and save $$?

Pelican

Pelican

Well-known member
Is there a focal length where IS is no longer beneficial for video?
I'm trying to build my Canon Lens collection around the C100. I would like to hear opinions on the benefits of IS with the 70-200 f4. I'm tempted to go with non-IS (to help purchase the 100mm macro). Th 70-200 is double the price for IS, and I wonder if you're typically locked down (tripod) while this tight,, say greater than 100mm?
 
IS takes the jitters out more than anything and with the 24-105 it's great. I'm in the same place as you since I own the non-IS F4 70-200. I dont see myself shooting handheld with this lens so for now I'm keeping my non IS version. It's tack sharp and with high ISO being so clean f4 inst an issue. The 100mm macro IS is one lens I want badly.
 
IS is a very very nice thing to have for any focal length, but consider anything over 50mm to be crossing the line into essential for handheld.
 
Have a shoot this weekend where I am renting the 70-200 F4 is. I typically shoot non is as I think it will not be useful for handheld. Want to try some handheld this weekend and see before I buy. Can give a heads up after this weekend.
 
I can tell you with absolute confidence that IS for anything above 50mm is essential if shooting handheld. I shot an adventure doc in Brazil, out of small boats on the Amazon River, and shot quite a bit at 200mm with nothing more than a Zacuto handgrip and Z-Finder. Without the IS, very little if any of that footage would have been usable. (And hey, my standards for "usable" are very, very flexible. :D)
 
My first post on this site. I love the IS on the 70-200. I shoot handheld all the time with this lens. I can work fast and make shots that I never dreamed of getting before IS. On my 17-55 the IS makes all the difference after 40mm. And with the 100 IS lens I can handheld, rack focus from the bg to a macro of an eye, and the shot works. Before IS, setting up a macro shot on a tripod was time consuming and tedious. Now, I can offer directors cool shots, much quicker.

I try and shoot 2.8 as much as possible. With these big chip cameras the shallow focus is what gives it that big movie feel. Shooting T4 and 5.6 is ok and sometimes necessary for focusing but it never looks as sweet as 2.8. I know the 70-200 f2.8 is HUGE $$ but when I bought my EF C300, (and broke the bank) I decided I had go all the way and get lens that would make the coolest looking images. For me, it's working out. My big selling point to directors and producers is hey, here is a camera and lens we can get a feature film look, really dam fast. They like this.
 
IS is worth the money.

I am looking at upgrading all my lenses to the IS versions. The only problem is that there is not enough lenses with IS. Where is my 16 - 60 f2.8 IS thats built like the 70 - 200?
 
For what it's worth, for me IS is pretty indispensable. I never shoot 70-200 handheld (Handheld?? That's crazy talk!), but I do run around with a monopod a lot, and the IS makes a lot of difference.

Plus, for photos -- you'd definitely want IS.

Have patience -- save up for the right lens! They're not all that different in price...
 
Okay, had to chime in here. Bought the 70-200 f4 IS after the sudden death of my 80-200 2.8 non-IS - and am LOVING the new lens.

You can hand hold shots at full range (200mm). It's light and compact enough to shove into a vest pocket, and half the weight of its 2.8 equivalents.

I could have bought the 2.8 IS version, but now that the C100 has brought back hand-held shooting, I don't care about the extra stop - I'll take light weight, svelte size and the superb IS every time.

So that's the 17-55, the 240-105 and the 70-200 - all IS, all pretty compact and light weight, two lenses in the vest, one on the camera.

For video, you HAVE to go IS if you want to do any sort of dynamic stuff. As everyone's said before, it's there to remove the 'micro-jitter' - still up to you to do a good hand-held job.
 
Ok, thanks everyone. I just bought the 70-200 IS yesterday. Beautiful, and I am amazed at the ability to go handheld at 200mm. I do want to note the noise of the IS.. I'm hoping it's not just my copy, but it would definitely be picked up by an on-camera mic. Is that true for everyone else?
 
I've had no noise issues with the 70-200 IS when I view my footage, but I do pick up noise sometimes on the Macro 100 IS. I think that has to do with the fact I'm often so close to the subject. Glad your liking the IS for handheld.
 
Confirmed that this lens is a bit noisy with I.S. turned on. Just an FYI for anyone else who hears it, and thinks they need to return it.
 
I shot nonstop convention presentations for two solid days from a platform 125' from the stage. The #2 IS setting on the 70-200mm f/4 L was amazing. I was at 200mm most all the time and the panning was as smooth on my cheap portable tripod and head (501 Bogen) as it ever was on my O'Conner Model 30. I'm a believer.
 
I own 24L 50L 85L 100L IS, so far the 100L with IS is better than my 24L when Handheld, so I think it is a must if you dont have shoulder rigs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top