Plexi Head
Active member
The above comment is so wrong in so many ways.
C100: Video I made on C100 and 5D3
- Thread starter Michael Thames
- Start date
The above comment is so wrong in so many ways.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Doug, has it ever occurred to you that the 2.8 allows me to lower the ISO and the f4 does not. In addition to the actual lens being sharper, lower ISO is cleaner, resulting in a significant improvement. I already posted a video here which shows a side by side comparison of both lenses. All of these improvements and all you can say is my lens is broken, then you tell me I'm not seeing an improvement in detail of the image rather that the image is just popping out....... yer saying some crazy stuff man, you should stop before the hole gets any deeper.
Last edited:
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
I take advice I think is useful and disregard advice I think is not useful. I did thank those who suggested a more dramatic lighting, which I believe really helped the last few videos I made, but I made it clear from the beginning I didn't care for a potpourri of different camera angles for the sake of well...... different camera angels. I in fact posted a video of exactly what I didn't like.
Now if people with more experience as you say than I, start Pontificating to me my lens is broken because I see and improvement in my image then I must question these venerable masters. I don't operate on faith alone but, I try and use a little common sense, experience and research.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Ha ha! Which part? You mean the 24-105 is better than the 70-200 2.8 IS USM II? I know photographers who have spent the better part of their lives in dark rooms meticulously developing their craft. They tend to look at things a bit different than your average self proclaimed Indie film maker, who for the most part can't tell the difference in a sharp lens. A good lens to a videographer might indeed have different functions, and sharpness seem to not be that hight on the list.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
No, the part when you wrote, generally speaking, that photographers are more knowledgable than videographers. Come on! Why is that? In both profession there are amateurs and there are pros.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Well...why not ask them (pro photographers) for advice and not bother asking questions on this forum? Or send private messages to the few pro videographers in this forum.
again Michael, I believe when you say that the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper than your 70-200 F4 IS...why shouldn't I?
Who told you that your lens was broken? But, I really don't know why in hell you won't even consider that MAYBE (not saying that it IS...but maybe) your lens is less sharp than other 70-200 F4. You know that all lenses are not build equal, no? That some lenses are sharper than others of the same model? Again, not saying that yours is a bad copy...but for the love of god, just consider it! Did you try other 70-200 F4?
I read an old thread regarding lenses, and you even posted that some people even think that the F4 is sharper than the 2.8. Care to explain?
Doug_EX
Well-known member
I read a lot of reviews and comparison between the 2 lenses, and none (I really mean none) came to the same conclusion that yours. And some of the reviews are from pros. They pratically all say that if you need the extra stop for low light or to "freeze" your subject more, get the 2.8. Otherwise, there is no point on getting the 2.8, if not to spend more cash.
I never intensive tests but what I saw from some of the footage that I shot with these 2 lenses (borrowed lenses) is basically that they gave about the same results.
I never intensive tests but what I saw from some of the footage that I shot with these 2 lenses (borrowed lenses) is basically that they gave about the same results.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Well if you insist Doug, I'll tell you why I think photographers know their stuff and it has to do with you. My neighbor the award winning photographer told me the f2.8 was much better than the f4, you one the other hand tell me they are the same. I found from my own experience that your comment was not correct and her's was correct. This makes me have more respect for her opinion than yours.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Doug, you are taking this to an extreme level of absurdity. I posted a video, and said, advice was welcome. I received some excellent advice about lighting which I tried to improve, I also received advice on doing away with the transitions which I did. However, not all advice is always right, and in particular I really didn't think your advice and example of different angles was appropriate for what I wanted to accomplish..... and I stated that...... sorry if I offended you, but I've been there done that with crazy camera angles.
I Mentioned Photographers in a general sense because I learned a lot from my friend while she was helping me with the final videos. She has an amazing collection of fantastic lens and she knows her stuff.
Just to clarify, I never asked advice about lenses. Just the opposite, I gave advice based on my experience. I stated how much sharper the video I did with the 2.8 was. You and Eric are the ones telling me the opposite when in fact, you can simply look at the videos I did and clearly see the difference with your own eyes. I stand by my words that moving up from a 24-105 to the 70-200 2.8 is the best bang for your buck if you want to improve your experience with the C100, I can think of no other thing.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Go back a few posts and take a look at the comparison video I posted on these two lens. If you can't see a difference then I don't know what to say..... in fact I'm speechless.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Here is the comparison video. This is the best video out there because it shows these two lens side by side. Now, if the images were of video cameras, say a C100 and a C300 instead of two lenses, there is enough of a difference everyone would sell their C100 and run out and buy a C300.
There is a noticeable difference in sharpness in these lenses. This video confirms my own experience as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4QSHwdmKlw
There is a noticeable difference in sharpness in these lenses. This video confirms my own experience as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4QSHwdmKlw
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Yea, I posted that based on the same reviews you probably saw. I was happy about those reviews and bought my 70-200 f4 thinking I had made a good decision, although at the time the f2.8 IS USM II was out of my budget so it was never really a contender. I still love the f4, and it's miles above the 24-105.
I happily held that belief until I actually used a 2.8 and saw for myself a drastic difference..... this was also confirmed by the guitarist who after viewing the video was amazed at the difference, and needless to say my photographer friend.
I'm getting a bit tired of your constant insinuations that my f4 has a quality problem, in your mind that scenario is easier to accept than the fact that in reality the 2.8 is sharper.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
It think Michael you don't read carefully what other people write. If you click on the link you just posted (and read carefully) you would see that it'a a comparison of a SONY F4 lens vs the Canon 2.8. It's the second time in this thread that I tell you it's a Sony vs Canon comparison, and you are still refering to this link. And you should also read carefully the post you wrote. One time you mention that your friend (photographer) tells you that you'll see a difference between the 24-105 and the 70-200 2.8...and in another post, you are referring to the 70-200 F4 vs the 2.8.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Yes you are correct, I finally saw that as I was reading the comments in youtube. My apologies. I googled a comparison between the two lens and saw two white lens that I assumed were both versions of the 70-200. I do remember in my previous research seeing another comparison video on these, I will try and find that video it was very well done and clearly showed the 2.8 as the winner. If that fails I will make my own video comparing the two. However, you have failed to comment on which of the two videos I made were sharper. Can you take a look at them and tell me please?
Concerning the comment by my photographer friend. That was not a quote from her, as I said before she told me I would see a huge improvement with the 2.8 which we all witnessed.
I used the 24-105 vs 70-200 2.8 mk II as an example of a bang for buck improvement in the image short of buying a new camera. The 24-105 is perhaps the most common lens
used with the C100 at least based on threads I've read on this forum.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
OK Doug here it is. Skip to 3:15 and you will see a comparison of the 70-200 f4 and the f2.8. The 2.8 is sharper than the f4. and that's a fact Jack. Oh yea...... and please don't tell us they got a bad f4 lens now..... LOL! I like this video because it shows actual side by side comparisons rather than someone's touchy feely half-ass opinion without any factual information.
Now this is probably the sweet spot as far as aperture goes on both these lenses. Consider that in my videos I shoot indoors at night with minimal lighting, the fact that I noticed a significant difference in sharpness when I went from f4 down to 2.8 and adjusted my ISO accordingly, is just crazy talk, right? Are you going to argue the point that an f4 is sharper at a higher ISO than a 2.8 at a lower ISO? In addition to the sharpness the 2.8 has considerably better contrast as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au1P3_UCMIM
Now this is probably the sweet spot as far as aperture goes on both these lenses. Consider that in my videos I shoot indoors at night with minimal lighting, the fact that I noticed a significant difference in sharpness when I went from f4 down to 2.8 and adjusted my ISO accordingly, is just crazy talk, right? Are you going to argue the point that an f4 is sharper at a higher ISO than a 2.8 at a lower ISO? In addition to the sharpness the 2.8 has considerably better contrast as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au1P3_UCMIM
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Ya well, Michael, in this video the 70-200 2.8 have the edge (not by much though) over the F4 IS. But saying that it's a night and day difference is completely false. Search on google and you'll see many reviews that state that the 2.8 is a better buy if you need the extra stop, otherwise, both are equally good. Search please. Or do you want me to provide some links?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
For a video like the one originally posted in this topic, since it's not run n' gun and is just seated in one location I can't think of any reason to not use lighting other than that all of the budget was spent on a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. For $2000 you could add some nice lighting with a 24-105 or other lens and probably get better results than the optically superior Canon 70-200 f/2.8 without lighting.
Also, as well all know, lenses perform better when stopped down from their maximum aperture. There's also the overly shallow depth of field to consider; if your subject is moving at all then there's more risk of shots going out of focus when using a long focal length at f/2.8, and obviously an out of focus shot at f/2.8 is not going to be as sharp as an in-focus shot at f/4, regardless of the quality of the lens. Most of my corporate and doc work I aim for f/4-f/5.6 when filming indoors. I'll often prefer 1600 ISO at f/4 over 800 ISO at f/2.8, even if I'm filming with an f/2.8 lens. F/2.8 is nice to have when you need it in low light, or if you like the shallower look, but video lighting is even nicer to have when you have the time to set it up.
Also, as well all know, lenses perform better when stopped down from their maximum aperture. There's also the overly shallow depth of field to consider; if your subject is moving at all then there's more risk of shots going out of focus when using a long focal length at f/2.8, and obviously an out of focus shot at f/2.8 is not going to be as sharp as an in-focus shot at f/4, regardless of the quality of the lens. Most of my corporate and doc work I aim for f/4-f/5.6 when filming indoors. I'll often prefer 1600 ISO at f/4 over 800 ISO at f/2.8, even if I'm filming with an f/2.8 lens. F/2.8 is nice to have when you need it in low light, or if you like the shallower look, but video lighting is even nicer to have when you have the time to set it up.