C200: Lens Support Need for Canon 70-200 F/2.8
- Thread starter dharty
- Start date
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I use that lens with my C100s and C300s often with no lens support and no issues.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Try using that lens, then carrying your camera mounted to your tripod and carrying it on the tripod and walking, jogging over rough terrain as I often do shooting run & gun or documentary. Try hand carrying the camera and lens to your next setup and stumbling and almost dropping it. In those circumstances, for just a millisecond, you increased the weight of the 4lb lens to about 100lbs due to the g-forces (wish I had done better in physics class, I'd have the actual formula)
I have that lens and camera and have also been shooting a lot with the 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II also which is a bit larger and heavier than the 70-200 2.8 IS II and I always use a lens support. Eric doesn't, but he's in love with his Amira now and wants his Canons to be punished ;-) Personally what convinced me to spend the big bucks ($15.00 for a no name lens support off of Amazon) was mounting the camera on the tripod, then the lens, then measuring the amount that the 70-200 2.8 IS II lens sags when mounted, it's about 1/4", how can that be good for the camera mount and or body? The standard answer is "Why on earth would you NOT use a lens support?" No upside to not using one and lots of potential downside.
I have that lens and camera and have also been shooting a lot with the 100-400 4.5-5.6 IS II also which is a bit larger and heavier than the 70-200 2.8 IS II and I always use a lens support. Eric doesn't, but he's in love with his Amira now and wants his Canons to be punished ;-) Personally what convinced me to spend the big bucks ($15.00 for a no name lens support off of Amazon) was mounting the camera on the tripod, then the lens, then measuring the amount that the 70-200 2.8 IS II lens sags when mounted, it's about 1/4", how can that be good for the camera mount and or body? The standard answer is "Why on earth would you NOT use a lens support?" No upside to not using one and lots of potential downside.
I am weighing several factors in trying to decided on the right lens to use for interviews: depth of field at F/4 vs F/2.8, shooting at 800 - 1200 ISO vs 1600 - 2400 ISO, carrying and using additional support equipment or not. I have been shooting interviews with a Sigma 24-105 F4 and Canon 70-200 F/4. When I frame a head shoulder interview at 70mm -100mm, which creates a nice personal distance from the interviewer to the interviewee, I have a little to much DOF for some backgrounds. Having a 2.8 lens would give me more choices when setting up an interview. In almost any other shooting circumstance, F4 is fine. and the Canon 70-200 F4 seems fine without a lens support.
I used a lens support for years with my AF100 and a 2.8 lens, but really enjoyed how compact the C200 is without the needed rails.
Drew
rocstudios
Member
Yes I use the same sometimes and no needed for the support - although lately I am using the the CN-E lenses but when I switch to the 70-200 I do not need the support....
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I don't use lens support with the Arri Amira when using the 4.8 lb Canon Cinema Zooms. One thing I really like about the Amira which makes rigging it a lot quicker than rigging a C300 with cinema zooms which I always use support with.
This topic has been discussed before, but I guess we'll just repeat ourselves for the new folks.
The downsides of mounting are then you need a rail setup, a rail baseplate, etc., which add size, weight, complexity, and setup and lens changing time to what for some can be a very simple camera setup. So, plenty of downsides. Most of the time I use my C300s without any rail setup, using L-series or the 18-80 lens, and only do a rail setup if I'm using the bigger cine zooms. Every once in a while I'm at home the night before a shoot spending a good 30-60 minutes re-rigging my two C300s for two cinema zooms and it's rather a pain, while with the Amira I just show up and it's ready to go. I still shoot with my C300s a lot more often than the Amira, though, as I haven't fully built up an Amira client base.
I've mostly phased out shooting with my C100s (as in, I don't quote them as a base option anymore), though I still keep them for when I need a lot of cameras, get double booked (crewing out), want a smaller/lighter camera, etc. So, mostly been C300 lately. When I first got the C300, I was still shooting mostly C100, and it took awhile to upgrade the client base to C300 rates, so hopefully I'll be able to do that over time with the Amira like I did with the C300s.
Right now I'm working on slimming down my C300 setup so I can use it more easily on the Glidecam (thus, no railing). I want to buy the C200 monitor for the C300 so I'll get touch screen, plus it's smaller and lighter than the C300 clamshell. I just got the Devin Graham Glidecam which is a bit of an upgrade over the Glidecam HD4000 I've been using. When I was mostly shooting C100, I used the Glidecam regularly for b-roll; run n gun, staged shoots, you name it. With the C300 it took more setup time and was a bit on the heavy side, and the camera was a bit unwieldy on the Glidecam, so I haven't used it as much, though it does work.
And with the Amira I need to break out the big Steadicam Zephyr which is too much for solo operator shoots, good for crewed shoots. So, since I'm shooting mostly C300 lately, and missing giving nice Glidecam shots to my clients (which is one thing that sets me apart from other cameramen), I'm now working on streamlining a Glidecam setup for the C300. Even when shooting on the Amira for doc style work, it's nice to be able to just quickly pickup a C300 on a Glidecam and immediately shoot some nice moving shots with a quality camera. A Glidecam can be setup in 30-60 seconds or less, can be carried on your back, doesn't have electrical malfunctions, or require batteries. They were so popular and not terribly expensive; I'm still surprised gimbals made the Glidecam so unpopular, as if many forgot the simplicity of the Glidecam. I know people who shot Glidecam, switched to gimbals, got fed up with gimbals, and then instead of going back to Glidecam, almost as if they'd forgotten the Glidecam, switched to...nothing. Like, tripods and handheld, as if going back to Glidecam wasn't an option.
Personal preference I suppose, but I typically don't like shooting interviews at f/2.8 on the 70-200; too shallow; f/4-f/5.6 for my tight and f/2-f/4 for my tight is my preference. Ideally you have a background pretty enough you don't want to turn it to mush (I filmed an interview yesterday with a cool city backdrop at f/9-f/11 at 40mm), and I like to be able to have the interviewee's ears and eyes in focus, as well as not having to worry too much about them going out of focus should they move and inch or two.
Sounds to me like your real issue is your key light is not bright enough if you're only getting 1600 - 2400 ISO at f/4. Better to spend that $2k on lighting if that's the case I'd say.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I don't use the lens support with the CN-E compact zooms, they are on the borderline of what I feel comfortable with stressing my lens mount. But the longer lenses, yes. I've been shooting cradled a lot lately with the C200, BP-60A, 70-200 2.8 IS II, Zacuto VCT Pro Baseplate, 6" 15mm rods and my cheapo lens support. Works great and very manageable for everything handheld short of interviews, I go back up on tripod if the interview is standing but I have shot some with the talent sitting handheld. I never shoot standing interviews handheld cradled as I don't like looking up someone's nose for an interview, not flattering. I shot a few gimbal shots for our documentary but have since chucked the gimbal pretty much and am going straight handheld or tripod. I'm frankly really burned out on gimbal shots, they all look the same and Steadicam, for documentary work, is just too obtrusive and cumbersome.
As far as DOF, you sound like a candidate for the 85mm 1.8, great lens, really small and cheap compared to the 70-200 2.8 IS II although no IS on the 85mm, of course although I agree with Eric, there is such a thing as too shallow DOF. For our latest documentary, I am shooting in an environmental portraiture style a lot more, interviews with 24-40mm F4-5.6, I am also burned out with the narrow FOV super shallow DOF look, it's so boring, there is no life to it. I want to see my talent's body and hand gestures and I want to see their world around them. To me, these days, narrow FOV and shallow DOF interviews = TV, medium DOF and wider FOV = more cinematic.
And to be clear, with the 70-200 2.8 IS II, with the camera sitting there on sticks, I agree, no support needed. It's all of the transporting the camera and lens that makes me paranoid for the mount. Those of us who run all over the place with a built up camera, the support is needed for us. If you just sit in a studio or office with your camera on sticks, you don't need the support.
rob norton
Veteran
Does it worry you that it's only supported underneath the lens? The tripod on shoulder scenario could mean force coming from any direction?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Someone asked me via private message about the Glidecam, Steadicam Aero, etc., so figured I'd post my reply here as well in case others wanted this information...
_____________
Really depends on crew size and time. If I'm by myself, or just me and a sound guy, then I want something super simple. With a crew, I often prefer the Steadicam Zephyr. The Zephyr can of course support a lot more weight, as well as the monitor being of use, low mode being easier, and overhead shots looking down being easier.
The Steadicam Aero, like the Zephyr, requires a C-stand to dock the Steadicam. So, when you move to a new location, someone (a PA, for example) needs to move the stand as it's difficult to move the stand (often with a sand bag on it) on your own while you're suited up. The Glidecam on the other can be more easily laid against a wall, on the floor, or standing upright, so doesn't need a docking stand. The Glidecam breaks down super small, unscrewing apart, so doesn't take up too much space in my small SUV.
The Glidecam does not require a vest (while the Aero does); I have the same vest that the Aero comes with which I used to use (and still sometimes do) with the Glidecam, but eventually found it doesn't really make the footage that much better (if at all), and just increases duration you can shoot with it. But for quick b-roll, you don't really need long duration, which is how most corporate shoots are. So, I've been using the vest less and less with the Glidecam lately. The vest also takes around 30 seconds to put on, extra time to take out of the bag, pack, take off, makes it more difficult to say change lenses while suited up, etc. When I'm shooting with the Glidecam I'll often have a shoulder bag at my side which has three additional lenses in it, but find it difficult to carry the shoulder bag when I have the vest on. In addtion to the shoulder bag sometimes I'll also have a monopod strapped to my back with a strap which I can't do with a vest on. Again, all good if you have an AC helping you out and more time.
While having a monitor at the bottom is nice for doing Don Juan (walking forward while the camera is pointed backwards) shots and in general, it means having to deal with batteries, as well as connecting and disconnecting the SDI each time you put the camera on. I've had trouble getting the C300 Mark II monitor in a nice place for Glidecam use, which I think the C200 monitor will help with since it's easier to adjust being so lightweight. The C100 Mark II monitor is in a perfect place for Glidecam use; I just need to mimic that monitor location with the C300 and I'll be set.
Using the Glidecam with a heavier camera does require hand and arm strength which I've found I increased just the right muscles over time to adapt to using the Glidecam, while with the vest you don't need to have those muscles in good shape for it to work.
Here's a photo of the last C300 Mark II Glidecam setup I used. Worked, but I want to streamline it more.
I had to buy longer screws on the bottom so I could attach more weights (and also bought more Glidecam weights).
I found this setup of the C200 on GearDads.com (http://www.geardads.com/canon-c200/) (Slavik on DVXuer's site) which I'm considering mimicking with the C300 Mark II so it will work well on the Glidecam.
_____________
Really depends on crew size and time. If I'm by myself, or just me and a sound guy, then I want something super simple. With a crew, I often prefer the Steadicam Zephyr. The Zephyr can of course support a lot more weight, as well as the monitor being of use, low mode being easier, and overhead shots looking down being easier.
The Steadicam Aero, like the Zephyr, requires a C-stand to dock the Steadicam. So, when you move to a new location, someone (a PA, for example) needs to move the stand as it's difficult to move the stand (often with a sand bag on it) on your own while you're suited up. The Glidecam on the other can be more easily laid against a wall, on the floor, or standing upright, so doesn't need a docking stand. The Glidecam breaks down super small, unscrewing apart, so doesn't take up too much space in my small SUV.
The Glidecam does not require a vest (while the Aero does); I have the same vest that the Aero comes with which I used to use (and still sometimes do) with the Glidecam, but eventually found it doesn't really make the footage that much better (if at all), and just increases duration you can shoot with it. But for quick b-roll, you don't really need long duration, which is how most corporate shoots are. So, I've been using the vest less and less with the Glidecam lately. The vest also takes around 30 seconds to put on, extra time to take out of the bag, pack, take off, makes it more difficult to say change lenses while suited up, etc. When I'm shooting with the Glidecam I'll often have a shoulder bag at my side which has three additional lenses in it, but find it difficult to carry the shoulder bag when I have the vest on. In addtion to the shoulder bag sometimes I'll also have a monopod strapped to my back with a strap which I can't do with a vest on. Again, all good if you have an AC helping you out and more time.
While having a monitor at the bottom is nice for doing Don Juan (walking forward while the camera is pointed backwards) shots and in general, it means having to deal with batteries, as well as connecting and disconnecting the SDI each time you put the camera on. I've had trouble getting the C300 Mark II monitor in a nice place for Glidecam use, which I think the C200 monitor will help with since it's easier to adjust being so lightweight. The C100 Mark II monitor is in a perfect place for Glidecam use; I just need to mimic that monitor location with the C300 and I'll be set.
Using the Glidecam with a heavier camera does require hand and arm strength which I've found I increased just the right muscles over time to adapt to using the Glidecam, while with the vest you don't need to have those muscles in good shape for it to work.
Here's a photo of the last C300 Mark II Glidecam setup I used. Worked, but I want to streamline it more.
I had to buy longer screws on the bottom so I could attach more weights (and also bought more Glidecam weights).
I found this setup of the C200 on GearDads.com (http://www.geardads.com/canon-c200/) (Slavik on DVXuer's site) which I'm considering mimicking with the C300 Mark II so it will work well on the Glidecam.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
That's true, but the lens support I have cups around the entire bottom of lens, not just at one point so I have at least a fighting chance it would not snap the mount off. depending on which way the impact was. I wonder if anyone makes a circular lens support, like a ring? I know the lens support for the CN-E Compact Servo zoom screws into a thread at the bottom of the lens, lending support from lateral and upward impact.
I typically use a Rifa with a 500w - 750 bulb and an egg crate at about 6-7 ft. from the subject as a key and Arri fresnel and Nila lights for background and accents. I find a 1000w bulb can bother people. I have lit literally hundreds of interviews with this set up but am still experimenting with settings and lens on the C200. I have been using Wide DR and shoot at 23.98P and am typically at 1600 ISO for good exposure. I like the extra head room Wide DR provides but do loose about 1/2 stop over the Normal Standard.
Drew
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
When I used a Rifa I used a 1000w bulb, and didn't use an egg crate (which also looses light). I believe if a light is too harsh on someone's eyes you can increase the size of the source (soften it) to lessen eye strain, which then means you'd need a brighter light to fill up the whole area while still achieving the level of brightness on the subject that you desire.
I have Litepanel Astra 4x lights which I switched to from the Lowel Rifa 88ex 1k. One Astra 4x shot through about a stop of diffusion (54" 5-in-1) gets me around f/4-f/8 at 850 ISO, and if I'm fighting a windowed background, I'll double them up to get around f/11 (then add ND to get back to say f/4-f/5.6). I bought the Litepanel Gemini a few weeks ago but have yet to use it on a shoot since the bag was on backorder and just came in a couple days ago, so I'm curious to see how well it fairs as a key light for interviews. I suspect I'll still use the Astras a lot for interviews since their small and easier to work with, and use the Gemini more for bigger crewed shoots.
I've been wanting to buy the Astra 6x lights, but I'm rather intrigued by the Practilite 802 panel lights. I have the Practilite 602 lights and love them. The 802 is half the size of the Astra (awesome since I like to pack small), the lux values are higher, and it has a lens system to change beam angle without loosing too much brightness so you essentially get an Astra Soft and regular Astra all in one. Also, I like to use the Wifi feature on my LED lights and the Practlite Wifi Ap works much better and more efficiently than the Litepanels Ap; the Litepanels ap is rather buggy and takes time to keep manually reconnecting so I often forgo using it, while the Practilite connects automatically.
Last edited:
rocstudios
Member
@puredrifting - that would be great to have the RING support.
@Eric awesome stripped down setup on the glidecam - I am still having to play around with different setups, I currently have the Shape Cage on my C200 and depending on the shoot I move things around, if I am using sticks it usually goes on the VCT mount and I have 2 different follow focus systems I have the Zacuto with the Tornado thing for shoulder mount 1 man show setup and when I have it back on the stick I use the tilta FF - only issue I have with the Zacuto tornado FF is can't use it with a matte box (someone on here said they did it but I believe it was for a EV1 cam)
and when I use the glidecam I am always torn if I remove it from the cage or not, I usually just take the top handle off and flip monitor center and run a VMOUNT on a belt clip - I think I may need more weights like what @Eric did (thanks for sharing that @Eric)
as like many of us - I wish there was a click and go for everything makes things easier in fast paced shooting environment.
@Eric awesome stripped down setup on the glidecam - I am still having to play around with different setups, I currently have the Shape Cage on my C200 and depending on the shoot I move things around, if I am using sticks it usually goes on the VCT mount and I have 2 different follow focus systems I have the Zacuto with the Tornado thing for shoulder mount 1 man show setup and when I have it back on the stick I use the tilta FF - only issue I have with the Zacuto tornado FF is can't use it with a matte box (someone on here said they did it but I believe it was for a EV1 cam)
and when I use the glidecam I am always torn if I remove it from the cage or not, I usually just take the top handle off and flip monitor center and run a VMOUNT on a belt clip - I think I may need more weights like what @Eric did (thanks for sharing that @Eric)
as like many of us - I wish there was a click and go for everything makes things easier in fast paced shooting environment.
rob norton
Veteran
I can't remember where I saw it (I think on dvxuser a few years ago), but it was just the 70-200 collar mounted on rods, giving a full ring of support. I can't remember if they could just slide the lens through the collar or how they set it up but it seems like a great option if you can streamline the set up time.
rob norton
Veteran
It was the collar mounted with something like this - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1100213-REG/lanparte_drc_02_double_15mm_rod_clamp.html