Long Zooms with IS

deltoidjohn said:
There is also the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. Not quite as long but it's 2-stops faster at the tele end. It's heavy though, which could be a bit of an inconvenience at live events.
Click to expand...

Heavy... yes, I have the non-OS version of this. It also has the distinction of being an internal zoom, the length doesn't change when zooming. The 100-300/4 little brother to this is known to be very sharp, is also internal zooming, but no OS.

Given the video requirements, the best thing I can suggest, is to rent the 100-400IS and try it out. Make sure that you're willing to put up with the compromises, ie push-pull zoom, somewhat spotty QA (some people swear by their 100-400, some people swear at it), older generation of IS (not tripod or panning aware).

The Canon EF70-200/2.8L IS II is an option, but it's almost twice the price once you add the 1.4x and/or 2x TC's. The IS is the latest generation, and IQ is very good, even with the 2x TC.

The Canon EF70-300L is nearly the same price as the 100-400, reviews seem to be positive so the IQ is good, it's a lot lighter and smaller, IS is the latest. You'll need a 1.4xTC to get the same range tho.

So I guess my conclusion is "rent them and try them".
 
ROCKMORE said:
I wish it was the best choice because the 70-200 2.8 is at the top of the list for me, but the 2x Canon extender on the 70-200 really starts to wash out compared to the 100-400mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2
Click to expand...

You are judging the quality of the lenses used for video purposes from the point of view of still photography. The conclusions for still photography don't always apply to HD video shooting. And some of them (such as those related to AF) could even be "wrong" (i.e., the opposite may be true).

As I wrote, I don't own the 2x extender (only 1.4x), so I can't tell much about 2x out of my own experience. But I had the chance to watch a few tutorial movies from the f-stop academy, as well as one from Philip Bloom: http://philipbloom.net/2009/11/29/7d-and-5dmkii-training-videos-now-available-as-digital-downloads/. Those guys don't talk about 1.4x. They use 2x whenever they need the extra reach for shooting video with their Canon 5D II, 7D, or ID Mark Iv. Philip Bloom uses 2x TC (not 1.4x) on Canon 100-400mm with his 7D too. If you think 70-200/f2.8 + 2x isn't very good for video (not still), here is Philip Bloom's take on the combo's IQ for HD video with 5D Mark II: http://philipbloom.net/2009/08/10/2x-extender-for-canon-eos-lenses/.


I hope I'm not leaving you the impression as if I were saying that 70-200/f2.8 + 2x TC were the best in your case. Which lens to buy for your own use is a very personal decision. Buy, rent, borrow, read reviews, ask around, do whatever you can to make your final choice. You could even go for Canon 28-300mm L lens (or a consumer grade 18-200mm) to get a ~11x zoom camera for shooting video (and still). It's your call. Good luck.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I wish it was the best choice because the 70-200 2.8 is at the top of the list for me, but the 2x Canon extender on the 70-200 really starts to wash out compared to the 100-400mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=8&APIComp=2
Click to expand...

If you try the 70-200/2.8 II (note the II), it's much better. You also have the option cranking up the contrast. The 1st generation 70-200/2.8 is a much older design with older IS implementation as well.
 
Kin Lau said:
If you try the 70-200/2.8 II (note the II), it's much better. You also have the option cranking up the contrast. The 1st generation 70-200/2.8 is a much older design with older IS implementation as well.
Click to expand...

I finally go my hands on a Canon 100-400. Nice, but big and heavy for my location kit, I travel a lot. The push pull design doesn't really work for me either.
Probably the 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 extender would be more useful on a daily basis. The 70-200 f4 is very sharp and light as well and I'm usually in full daylight at 1/50 sec. anyway. I also have a Canon front mounted 1.4 extender from a 16mm camera with a 67mm thread that only looses 1/3 to 1/2 a stop that might work.
 
The push pull zoom of the 100-400 is not as convenient to use for me either. I'd concur that the concept of the 2x converter being sufficient is suspect. It halves the light coming in and it is much softer in tests on The Digital Picture to me. Here's the direct comparison of the two lenses. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Seems like you could get two lenses for the same price as the 70-200 L f2.8 IS II. A better buy would be a vintage nikkor 300 f4 and a T3i with the 3x crop/zoom. Lens sharpness is everything when using that function. teleconverters need not apply :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
The push pull zoom of the 100-400 is not as convenient to use for me either. I'd concur that the concept of the 2x converter being sufficient is suspect. It halves the light coming in and it is much softer in tests on The Digital Picture to me. Here's the direct comparison of the two lenses. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Seems like you could get two lenses for the same price as the 70-200 L f2.8 IS II. A better buy would be a vintage nikkor 300 f4 and a T3i with the 3x crop/zoom. Lens sharpness is everything when using that function. teleconverters need not apply :)

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...
I agree with the disadvantage of a 2X. I have 2 of them, a Zuiko and a Pentax 2X from a 6x7 plus the Canon 1.4 front end adapter. They all degrade the image. I should probably be looking at a 300mm or 400mm vintage prime like/

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikko...89329457?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item45fc852c31

or/

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-NIKKO...38804553?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4aad85c349

/ along with a Canon 70-200 f4 L non IS which is a great lens for under $700, and hang on to my 55-250 if I really need IS.

Here is some interesting reading on the vintage Nikkor 50-300 zoom from the 60s./
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/50300mm.htm
/http://www.ebay.com/itm/nikon-50-300mm-f4-5-Non-Ai-lens-Nikkor-manual-focus-/170615055925?_trksid=p4340.m185&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC.OPJS%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUA%26otn%3D5%26pmod%3D220815390917%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D2280834223198866124
 
Last edited:
Another spot to look for the 300mm option with very decent pricing is at KEH.com

http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK06999030924N?r=FE

I hadn't seen that 50-300 lens before. I'd be currious to see how that one works. Never seen one for sale locally here in the classifieds.

There is a 100-400 in our classifieds that just came up today for $1300. Tempting to go give a try on my proto type shoulder rig and see if I can hold it steady enough.

Cheers,
Pete
 
I looked up that 50-300 and while it might have some decent ratings it's a tank. Thing weights 4 lbs 13 oz. or 77 oz.!!! It appears that the vintage Nikkor AIS 80-200 ED F2.8 is also about that weight. I think I'll wait around for a 70-200 L F4 IS to show up on the classifieds. They only weight 32 oz. and would be much more managable.

I have a vintage Nikkor that weights 8.5 lbs and is a bear to carry around. Add 10 lbs for the tripod and fluid head and you are ready to leave every thing else at home to keep it managable. My pack for going up in the mtns is about 35 lbs and it's already over the top. Try that with a slider and a couple more lenses around a 3 or 4 mile circuit on race day and you'll be wiped out.

Food for though anyway :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
I looked up that 50-300 and while it might have some decent ratings it's a tank. Thing weights 4 lbs 13 oz. or 77 oz.!!! It appears that the vintage Nikkor AIS 80-200 ED F2.8 is also about that weight. I think I'll wait around for a 70-200 L F4 IS to show up on the classifieds. They only weight 32 oz. and would be much more managable.

I have a vintage Nikkor that weights 8.5 lbs and is a bear to carry around. Add 10 lbs for the tripod and fluid head and you are ready to leave every thing else at home to keep it managable. My pack for going up in the mtns is about 35 lbs and it's already over the top. Try that with a slider and a couple more lenses around a 3 or 4 mile circuit on race day and you'll be wiped out.

Food for though anyway :)

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...

I hear ya. That's why I will probably never sell the canon 55-250. 13.76 oz (390g) with IS. Fits in the pack and don't even know it's there.

When they built that Nikon in 1966 they had a 1966 Chevy to drive it around in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top