Stills2HDConvert
Well-known member
Has anyone noticed a significant increase in detail in for example a 70-200 2.8L in a version II or III versus the original version on C200 images?
C200: Gen I versus II or III detail with Canon L lenses
- Thread starter Stills2HDConvert
- Start date
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I've shot with the old EF 24-105mm IS and then bought the newer EF 24-105mm IS II for my C200. The new one looks noticeably better, sharper, although the contrast and colors seem similar.
I shoot the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but haven't had a chance to shoot with the IS III version. All of the tests and resports say for that particular lens, not a very big difference. Since most of us shoot
still lenses on our C200s most of the time, I always take what reviewers say and then dilute the effect by about 50% since we're shooting video and not stills. Stills really amplify the differences
between similar lenses, they are more exacting and precise to see differences.
I can report that I've shot stills with some of my Canon lenses, cheap ones, like my EF S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and I was appalled how crappy the stills the looked, whereas in daylight exteriors,
shooting RAW, the results were acceptable, if not impressive. Video is so much lower resolution than stills. If I had the money, I would still buy the CN-E 18-80 t/4.4 compact zoom, that lens on the
C200 looked great. I couldn't use it on everything because it's so slow but it keeps DPAF and IS, unlike a true cine lens and if you light stuff, it looks great. It's a very appealing lens for the C200 if
you have a chance to rent one. I've seen some good deals for some lightly used ones too, under $3k.
I shoot the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but haven't had a chance to shoot with the IS III version. All of the tests and resports say for that particular lens, not a very big difference. Since most of us shoot
still lenses on our C200s most of the time, I always take what reviewers say and then dilute the effect by about 50% since we're shooting video and not stills. Stills really amplify the differences
between similar lenses, they are more exacting and precise to see differences.
I can report that I've shot stills with some of my Canon lenses, cheap ones, like my EF S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and I was appalled how crappy the stills the looked, whereas in daylight exteriors,
shooting RAW, the results were acceptable, if not impressive. Video is so much lower resolution than stills. If I had the money, I would still buy the CN-E 18-80 t/4.4 compact zoom, that lens on the
C200 looked great. I couldn't use it on everything because it's so slow but it keeps DPAF and IS, unlike a true cine lens and if you light stuff, it looks great. It's a very appealing lens for the C200 if
you have a chance to rent one. I've seen some good deals for some lightly used ones too, under $3k.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I think the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a very special lens that really, with good quality video, looks almost as good as cine lenses that cost ten or twenty times as much.
It's a classic, I will keep mine as long as I am shooting Canons or other cameras with adapters that it works with.
I tested the CN-E 70-200 t/4.4 when it came out and it's a nice lens but I think the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II looks just as good, is faster, and costs less than half the price.
indiawilds
Veteran
I am fully satisfied with my Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens. Also, the reviews didn't mention great difference. So haven't felt the need to look at the version III. I had used the EF 70-200 f2.8 without IS and 70-200 f2.8 IS version I. Each version is better than the previous.
The 100-400 version 2 is better than the version 1. Version 2 is sharper. The version 1 also had inconsistent quality.
I wish that Canon comes out with a cine IS full frame version of the lenses. I am also asked to do still photography. So having lenses that can work for both stills and video is important. I don't want s-35 version to be mated to a full frame camera by mistake.
The 100-400 version 2 is better than the version 1. Version 2 is sharper. The version 1 also had inconsistent quality.
I wish that Canon comes out with a cine IS full frame version of the lenses. I am also asked to do still photography. So having lenses that can work for both stills and video is important. I don't want s-35 version to be mated to a full frame camera by mistake.
cpreston
Veteran
My understanding is that the 70-200 III isn't noticeably better than the II. I've found the 24-70 f/2.8 II to be a more pleasing lens to use than the 24-70 f/2.8 I or the 28-70 f/2.8 and matches the qualities of the 70-200 f/2.8 II better than the older versions. I still have the 16-35 f/2.8 II and I rarely use it. Even on a crop frame the image just doesn't compare to the II versions of the other L lenses at f/2.8. I had a 20-35 f/2.8 L that was actually better in my opinion. At some point. I need to upgrade to the 16-35 f/2.8 III so that I can start using the wider angles again without feeling like the image suffers.