C100: Please Explain Difference Between the Two Models of 70-200 Zoom

nedcam

nedcam

Well-known member
I am about to buy the C100 and would like to get the 70-200 as part of the Canon rebate when I purchase the camera. I can't figure out the appreciable difference between the:

EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM

vs

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

naturally the latter is one stop faster but from what I've gleaned from this forum is the C100 is so sensitive you don't need to worry about opening to 2.8 correct?

Presently I have the Tokina 11-16 and will immediately buy the 24-105 so I figure this 70-200 will round out the kit. I am mainly a documentary shooter so swapping primes is not my style. Thank you for your advice as to difference between the two lenses.
 
Last edited:
The 24-70 f4 bugs me. I want that lens as a 2.8 with IS. I think I would be disappointed with it and since your already going to get the 24-105 it's not worth getting the 24-70 f4.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is one of the best lenses Canon makes. I would love to have it.

Having the extra couple stops only gives you a look that you might want as opposed to need for light.

If I had to pick either I would go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.
 
I have a 24-70 f2.8 L, one 24-105 f4 L IS and one 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens among others.

As Eric says, the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is very sharp. If you are shooting documentaries, then it is better to have this lens and the ability to handle lower light levels. Who knows in future what kind of assignment you will get into? The image stabilisation is also very good in this lens. I remember Canon saying that this is the cheapest 4 K lens in that zoom range. I am in love with this lens.
 
My Apologies Erik & Indiawilds! I had made a type. I meant to say: 70-200mm.

So you guys are saying having the extra stop with the 2.8, and it being newer, make it worth the extra money. And Erik, based on your migration from the AF100 to the C100, I followed you over! I respect your wisdom. With the proceeds from the AF100 I will get the 25-104 and the 70-200. That along with the 11-16 should have me covered for awhile, right?

Thanks,
 
You will have most focal ranges covered, but might lack some speed in the main working area between, let's say 16-70.

2.8 is fine in the 70-200mm range for isolating the background. In the wide range of 11-16 it's mostly not that needed, apart from letting light in when it's dark.

But that leaves you with f4 as the fastest stop for creating "looks" up to 70mm.

You might want to throw a good fast prime like the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ($799) in there. Or one of the 50mm 1.4s. They are not that expensive. The Sigma is exceptional.
 
Hi Andree,

I just sold my great Zeiss primes to free up $ for the C100, lenses, a Ninja, perhaps an EVF for bright outdoor shooting. I let the primes go cheap so the package sold quick on eBay, I bundled it with the AF100 because those don't sell quickly. I found that I wasn't using the primes, perhaps 1/3rd of the work is talking heads and 90% of the clients want me to change focal length every question, so the primes just sat in the bag. I tend to move fast, often working solo, so I worry that the lens bag will get stolen since I can't keep an eye on it., especially in public, really especially here in Chicago.

I was under the impression having studied so many posts that an f4 max opening was no issue with the C100 because there's no noise up to around ISO 12800 so I figured I could save $ by going with a 70-200 f4 rather than a f2.8, right? Unless there's something negative about the f2.8? I found this review although it's from a still photog, that says he regrets getting the 2.8 because he didn't see an improvement over his f4, although doing stills he probably isn't as keen about IS as us motion shooters? See:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G1LTCT58WU9P/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3G1LTCT58WU9P

When I get a new camera I usually go hog wild loading up on the accessories knowing that I will get frugal once the credit card bills come in. Because of the Canon rebate if I don't buy the 2.8 now I know I probably won't get it. That's why I'm trying to figure out if ONE STOP means so much with such a fast camera. Unless I'm missing something?

Coming from a micro 3/4 background it's hard for me to translate quickly in my head what the look of a mm in Super 35 is, seems the 11 is considered a fisheye in this forum? BTW, my bread and butter is corporate, documentaries and non-fiction TV shows (which are less and less).

Thanks
 
nedcam said:
Hi Andree,

I just sold my great Zeiss primes to free up $ for the C100, lenses, a Ninja, perhaps an EVF for bright outdoor shooting. I let the primes go cheap so the package sold quick on eBay, I bundled it with the AF100 because those don't sell quickly. I found that I wasn't using the primes, perhaps 1/3rd of the work is talking heads and 90% of the clients want me to change focal length every question, so the primes just sat in the bag. I tend to move fast, often working solo, so I worry that the lens bag will get stolen since I can't keep an eye on it., especially in public, really especially here in Chicago.

I was under the impression having studied so many posts that an f4 max opening was no issue with the C100 because there's no noise up to around ISO 12800 so I figured I could save $ by going with a 70-200 f4 rather than a f2.8, right? Unless there's something negative about the f2.8? I found this review although it's from a still photog, that says he regrets getting the 2.8 because he didn't see an improvement over his f4, although doing stills he probably isn't as keen about IS as us motion shooters? See:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G1LTCT58WU9P/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3G1LTCT58WU9P

When I get a new camera I usually go hog wild loading up on the accessories knowing that I will get frugal once the credit card bills come in. Because of the Canon rebate if I don't buy the 2.8 now I know I probably won't get it. That's why I'm trying to figure out if ONE STOP means so much with such a fast camera. Unless I'm missing something?

Coming from a micro 3/4 background it's hard for me to translate quickly in my head what the look of a mm in Super 35 is, seems the 11 is considered a fisheye in this forum? BTW, my bread and butter is corporate, documentaries and non-fiction TV shows (which are less and less).

Thanks
Click to expand...

A higher Fstop will do more than just 'let in more light'. It gives you a 'look'. What Andree is telling
you, is that from 16-70, you would have a lens that is F4 at the fastest which won't separate the
subject from the background as much. Same with the 70-200 zooms, the 2.8 zoom will give you
shallower depth of field than the F4. I always go with the fastest lens zoom I can afford, because
I can always stop down to F4 if I want more of the frame in focus, but I can't open up to F2.8
on a F4 lens. The faster lenses give you more flexibility, but cost more. It depends on you and
your style of shooting.....and your available money/budget.

I don't use primes much either. I have a 50mm 1.4 I use occasionally. I have a 50-150
2.8 zoom. But I didn't have anything fast on the wider end. I just bought a Sigma 18-35
F1.8 zoom and I LOVE the look you can get with it...shallow depth of field at wider focal
lengths which is hard to get usually. Not that you want that look all the time, but I
just stop down to F6 or so and drop out one stage of ND when I don't want that look.
Easy and flexible.
 
Last edited:
On the 70-200s......the IS II 2.8 sells the most ($2499 before an rebates), the regular 2.8 ($1449 before rebates) is number 2, and trailing far behind is the F4.......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
nedcam said:
Hi Andree,

Coming from a micro 3/4 background it's hard for me to translate quickly in my head what the look of a mm in Super 35 is, seems the 11 is considered a fisheye in this forum? BTW, my bread and butter is corporate, documentaries and non-fiction TV shows (which are less and less).

Thanks
Click to expand...

thing is it does not meter what cam u use and what sensor u have the "lens look" is still exactly the same. when u choose the lens it is not because of the MM but because of the look it gives u. The lens contraction / optical characteristics does not magically changes just because u put it on a different cam, its not magic its physics and its constant. period.

take 35mm lens and put it on m4/3 cam and take a pic from the distance of 1m to the subject and then put same lens on full frame cam and make an image from the 50cm distance - u ll notice that the look is exactly same. Lets take primes ..... 35,50,85,100,135.... - each lens will gives u completely different look, completely unique , regardless of what cam u use!

so 35mm lens will gives u a very unique look and 85mm lens will NEVER look same as 35mm , no meter how far away u ll be from the subject!!!! Remember that! and stop the crazy math and forget it, throw that knowledge away, erase it from your brain!

when u hear somethig like oh i have 25mm lens it will become 50mm on my m 4/3 - no it will not!!!
 
Last edited:
I think you need a fast zoom for interviews. I picked up the Sigma 18-35 just for that reason. I do a lot of talent talking to camera stuff and didn't have a fast longer lens to blur out the background. The fastest I had at work was a Canon 35mm L but I don't like to shoot faces with it because it's a wide angle and it distorts the face for a head and shoulders shot. Waist up it's much better but I still see it and it bugs me. Great lens but not for that shot.

I also picked up a Rokinon 85mm (with x1.5 crop 127mm) for my setup, and use it at the station a lot. It's my go to lens for talent delivering lines to camera.

Now I have the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (27-52.5mm in s35mm format). DONE! So far from what little testing I have done I'm thrilled with this lens. Its a fricken variable prime! Looks very good wide open, and at 35mm it's perfect for those head and shoulder shots. Me happy! I see the Sigma as a major player in my lens lineup.

I also have the Tokina 11-16 but mine is the Duclos version and it's a PL mount. I'm going to get the mount swapped out soon to EF but I'm in no rush because I don't use that range much and at work I have a Canon 16-35mm (x 1.5 crop = 24mm-52.5mm) and it's a nice lens.

The Tokina being APS-C makes it 16.5-24mm in s35mm format. Thats a nice range to have and it's fast at 2.8. Keeper!

So for know I think my set looks pretty good. Not thrilled that I have so many different brands in it, but I couldn't afford to stick with only Canon L for my own camera. These match pretty well, and I don't think will cause problems in post. I haven't tested how well the Tokina PL mount will match since I cant put it on my C100, or the Sigma, but the Rokinon is pretty close to the Canon 24-105 and I use the 24-105 a lot.

My personal set so far:
Duclos (Tokina) 11-16mm T2.8 (16.5-24mm in s35mm format)
Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 (27-52.5mm in s35mm format)
Rokinon 35mm T1.5 (52.5 s35)
Rokinon 85mm T1.5 (127mm s35)
Canon 24-105mm f4 (36-157.5 s35)
Canon 70-200 f4 Old non IS version (105-300mm s35) Since I have the 24-105 f4 I would rather have this f2.8 version.

I've had my 70-200 f4 for many years, so it just stays in the rotation as cameras come and go.
 
Last edited:
nedcam said:
Hi Andree…
Click to expand...

Hi Ned,

Don't get me wrong, I think you'll do fine with the setup you've described. And now that I learned a bit more about what you do in your last post, you've sort of confirmed that.

Yes, the C100 is a strong low light performer and it maintains its image characteristics even under high ISOs. But I would not aim for shooting at ISO 12.800. If you're in a situation where ISO 12.800 is what stands between you and the shot—sure use it—but in a controlled environment (such as an available light indoor office landscape) I would want to have lenses to cover that at normal ISOs. That said, I think you do with your setup!

My remark was more along the lines of what alaskacameradude says above: your 70-200, or the 24-105 at the tele end will be able to isolate subjects from their background. Even at f4 (effect is stronger at f2.8 of course). But you might want that ability at wider focal lengths too?

It's great to be able to make a busy background go away on the fly by opening up a 35 to 1.4 for instance. Also, wider lenses wide open have a certain something.... almost an "expensive" look.

Fast glass has that "double action": they offer storytelling short dof + they can get you back to sweet spot ISOs in low light.

But it all depends on what you shoot. Anyway, that was the hole I spotted in your lineup and I mentioned it since it doesn't have to be expensive to fill.

Happy shooting.
 
anatusa said:
thing is it does not meter what cam u use and what sensor u have the "lens look" is still exactly the same. when u choose the lens it is not because of the MM but because of the look it gives u. The lens contraction / optical characteristics does not magically changes just because u put it on a different cam, its not magic its physics and its constant. period.

take 35mm lens and put it on m4/3 cam and take a pic from the distance of 1m to the subject and then put same lens on full frame cam and make an image from the 50cm distance - u ll notice that the look is exactly same. Lets take primes ..... 35,50,85,100,135.... - each lens will gives u completely different look, completely unique , regardless of what cam u use!

so 35mm lens will gives u a very unique look and 85mm lens will NEVER look same as 35mm , no meter how far away u ll be from the subject!!!! Remember that! and stop the crazy math and forget it, throw that knowledge away, erase it from your brain!

when u hear somethig like oh i have 25mm lens it will become 50mm on my m 4/3 - no it will not!!!
Click to expand...

Ha! Passion. I like that!

The look of the same lens does change from camera to camera with different sensor sizes. The crop makes you move back to get the shot so if space is an issue and you need the look of a 85mm this could cause a problem. For this reason having APS-C lenses in your kit is a good idea and the Sigma can be a work horse for this very reason. I did a head and shoulders test shot with it at 35mm, and I was on the floor! No distortion and I didn't have to be very far away to get the framing.
 
I am editing a wedding I shot a while ago, right now actually, and I used the 70-200 2.8 ( first gen), the 24-105 and a sigma 30 1.4.
It was very, very dark in there, and I used the 70-200 for the first quarter, the 24-105 for the majority of the rest of the night and tossed the sigma on at the end.
ISO was 8-1000 on the 24-105 and while it is usuable, and looks 20x better than the Sony FS100 footage that was my B-Cam , the Sigma footage looks much better and I wish I had been able to throw it on earlier.
I've since sold the Sigma and bought the 18-35 a week or two after it came out and while I REALLY wish that it had IS, it is an amazing lens.
 
Thank you all for explaining. And Erik, is there a converter you use to determine the equivalent focal length in S35? I ask because I'm not great at math.

I now understand how the extra stop for the 70-200 will effect DoF, I was only thinking about increasing ISO to compensate but yes, that will be detrimental for a shallow depth of field. I wish I could test it first but my understanding of the Canon deal is that I'd have to purchase it with the camera to get the rebate but I will check on that.

Also, on Amazon, the still guys like to leave reviews and there seems to be a few that have had to return the lens to Canon for malfunctioning IS. However, I think I need to get it plus I will look into the Sigma 18-35 as a variable prime.
 
nedcam said:
Thank you all for explaining. And Erik, is there a converter you use to determine the equivalent focal length in S35? I ask because I'm not great at math.

I now understand how the extra stop for the 70-200 will effect DoF, I was only thinking about increasing ISO to compensate but yes, that will be detrimental for a shallow depth of field. I wish I could test it first but my understanding of the Canon deal is that I'd have to purchase it with the camera to get the rebate but I will check on that.

Also, on Amazon, the still guys like to leave reviews and there seems to be a few that have had to return the lens to Canon for malfunctioning IS. However, I think I need to get it plus I will look into the Sigma 18-35 as a variable prime.
Click to expand...

I just use a calculator and take the lens times 1.5 equals.

85 X 1.5 = 127.5

The crop confuses so many people and I get confused sometimes as well. It's funny because a lot of people will go with the idea that a 35mm is a normal lens on a s35 sensor and it isn't at all. Its a cropped 35mm wide angle and the distortion is still present only cropped. Thats why I like APS-C lenses in the REAL normal range because the distortion isn't present and people look so much better at 50mm and beyond.

With our AF-100 the Voigtlander 25mm was my favorite lens for on camera lines framed as head and shoulders. No distortion and super fast made the backgrounds nice and soft and out of focus.
 
Last edited:
Hey Ned- it's already been laid out that it's not just the speed of the 70-200 2.8, but the DOF (and the bokeh that results).

But one thing to be aware of is that the 2.8 weighs 3.28 lbs and the 4.0 weighs 1.67 lb- better, faster glass is always heavier.

I know you shoot a bit of handeld on your rig, though I don't know how much you would do that with the 70-200, even with IS.

I have:
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Canon 17-35 2.8L
Canon 24-70 2.8L
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS (a beautiful piece of glass- among the best, but yes, hefty).

And my Voightlander 25 .95 (still have the AF100 for now)- man, I wish that would work on the C100 or they would make one in S35!!!
 
My advice: buy both.

I own the f/2.8 II. It is, as everyone has said, a crackerjack of a lens. No question. It's my go to lens for standard interviews and B roll. I use it for stills too, where the extra stop makes a huge difference to the autofocus system. But, the f/4 is half the size and half the weight. So, if you are only shooting outside the f/4 could be a good option, particularly if you need to be mobile.
 
OK I will buy the 2.8 version! Weight isn't an issue, I come from a full rig background and I am used to 20-22 lbs on my shoulder all day so this is a piece of cake. Thank you everybody.
 
I started as a still photographer shooting black and white portraits more than two decades back. Did lot of shooting in slides. In most of my reviews, you see wildlife stuff as that is my passion. These days I am filming wildlife as well as social documentaries, corporates and low budget features etc. This lens is used in all of those. You may check this review of the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens and you will find lot of wildlife stills as well.
http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-review/
Rest assured about this lens.

nedcam said:
I found this review although it's from a still photog, that says he regrets getting the 2.8 because he didn't see an improvement over his f4, although doing stills he probably isn't as keen about IS as us motion shooters? See:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G1LTCT58WU9P/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3G1LTCT58WU9P

When I get a new camera I usually go hog wild loading up on the accessories knowing that I will get frugal once the credit card bills come in. Because of the Canon rebate if I don't buy the 2.8 now I know I probably won't get it. That's why I'm trying to figure out if ONE STOP means so much with such a fast camera. Unless I'm missing something?
Thanks
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top