Canon 70

Jerry Porter · November 3rd, 2009, 03:33 PM

Looking to buy another lens for the kit and I'm thinking about the Canon 70-200 f2.8. I know the price difference between the IS lens and the non-IS lens is bout 500.00. When shooting video (mostly off a tripod) with this lens. Is IS on the lens needed? (yes I know that is a subjective question) But, in general is the extra 500 worth it for video?

Brian Luce · November 3rd, 2009, 03:41 PM

I don't think it's worth it if you'll be on sticks.
Btw, you can get the same specs for less money from Tamaron. They make good glass too.

Jerry Porter · November 3rd, 2009, 03:44 PM

Thanks I just ordered the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and hoping for the best I have read good things about it. What really sold me on it is that it's Para-focal like the Canon L's which is why I'm looking at the 70 - 200. Is the Tamron Para-focal also? I spent too many years setting focus like that and it makes life a lot easier for me. That and if you have a steady hand you can do some zoom in and out shots with the DSLR.

Jaser Stockert · November 3rd, 2009, 03:55 PM

jerry,

did you purchase the Tamron VC(vibration Compensation) version or non VC?

Jerry Porter · November 3rd, 2009, 03:57 PM

I bought the VC version, it should be here tomorrow. I went with VC on this one because it will be the walk-around lens and if I'm going hand held it's light enough that my skinny body can pull it off for more than 45 seconds... LOL

Jaser Stockert · November 3rd, 2009, 03:59 PM

where did you purchase? i've been looking for one in stock? thanks!

David Chapman · November 3rd, 2009, 04:09 PM

Just to throw this in... The 70-200 2.8 L IS is getting replaced buy the IS II and the IS one's will be discounted. The L is a much better lens (coming from photography) and the IS would definitely help out on the long end (in video IMO).

I would watch B&H in the next week or so to keep tabs on the 70-200's price. I it was $1500 a few months back and recently was raised to $2k. If it gets back to $1500 or below, I'm definitely picking that up. There are a number of places to rent this lens by the week, and it's only about $150 or so for 7 days.

Jerry Porter · November 3rd, 2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaser Stockert

where did you purchase? i've been looking for one in stock? thanks!

Calumet had it in stock on Monday. I called and they shipped it the same day.

Jerry Porter · November 3rd, 2009, 04:51 PM

Thanks Dave,
I have a guy coming over right now to pick up the JVC HD110 so I will have the cash to jump when/if the price drops. At 1,500 that's hard to pass up.

Paul Cascio · November 3rd, 2009, 05:02 PM

IS is really good for long lenses and hand held shooting, but when you're using a tripod, you should really turn it off if you plan on panning or tilting.

Keith Moreau · November 4th, 2009, 12:27 AM

Are IS lenses meant for still photography still useful in video mode? Or are we just talking about the benefits of IS with stills?

I have heard that IS for stills is a godsend and allow 1-2 stops lower shutter speed for the same stability.

I have a 7D with the kit 28-135 lens with IS. I haven't done a lot of testing but I heard that IS DLSR stabilization is not really on par with dedicated camcorder image stabilization. Like the lens and the camera communicate and the lens tells the camera to fire off when it knows it's stable. Supposedly this makes it 'jerky' in video mode. Of course I have no proof of this. But I'd like to hear reports from people that are using IS and non IS lenses.

I have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 non-IS and I will be getting a Tamron 2.8 17-50 IS on Friday (from Amazon). The Tamron I like it so far, it seems, from initial testing to be pretty sharp and fast. I hope the IS version is as well. if so I'll probably return the non-IS one.

Jerry Porter · November 4th, 2009, 08:34 AM

Well I just got off the phone with Tamron USA and asked about the 70-200 f2.8 and they assured me that it is also Parfocal. For $680.00 bucks it really seems like a good deal for what I'm going to do with this camera and that is shoot 95% video with it. The lens has great reviews on B&H so I think I might have to go this route. Any one here have one? Can you confirm that it is Parfocal? (and that it is reliably parfocal)

Khoi Pham · November 4th, 2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Moreau

Are IS lenses meant for still photography still useful in video mode? Or are we just talking about the benefits of IS with stills?

I have heard that IS for stills is a godsend and allow 1-2 stops lower shutter speed for the same stability.

I have a 7D with the kit 28-135 lens with IS. I haven't done a lot of testing but I heard that IS DLSR stabilization is not really on par with dedicated camcorder image stabilization. Like the lens and the camera communicate and the lens tells the camera to fire off when it knows it's stable. Supposedly this makes it 'jerky' in video mode. Of course I have no proof of this. But I'd like to hear reports from people that are using IS and non IS lenses.

I have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 non-IS and I will be getting a Tamron 2.8 17-50 IS on Friday (from Amazon). The Tamron I like it so far, it seems, from initial testing to be pretty sharp and fast. I hope the IS version is as well. if so I'll probably return the non-IS one.

IS is a must if you are handheld or support by some kind of shouldermount, all you have to do is zoom in all the way with your 28-135, hold it as still as possible and then turn off the IS and you will see its benefit.

Steve Phillipps · November 4th, 2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

IS is really good for long lenses and hand held shooting, but when you're using a tripod, you should really turn it off if you plan on panning or tilting.

Exactly. What happens if you pan or tilt is that the IS sees it as camera movement and tries to correct it so as you pan it tries to fight you by shifting the image back the way you've come from - and it makes you dizzy!
The only thing it is good for is when you're locked off in windy conditions.
Steve

Alvin Ang Teng Cheong · November 4th, 2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

IS is a must if you are handheld or support by some kind of shouldermount, all you have to do is zoom in all the way with your 28-135, hold it as still as possible and then turn off the IS and you will see its benefit.

I totally agree with Khoi Pham, I've done quite a few shots using the 7D and my preferred style is to go handheld. I'm using the kit lens (18 - 135) and it comes with IS.

At 135mm, it's really handy to have the IS. Seeing the benefits of the IS, I don't think I'll get another zoom lens without it.

November 3rd, 2009, 03:33 PM	#1
Jerry Porter Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Satellite Beach, Fl Posts: 784	Canon 70 - 200 f2.8? Is IS needed? Looking to buy another lens for the kit and I'm thinking about the Canon 70-200 f2.8. I know the price difference between the IS lens and the non-IS lens is bout 500.00. When shooting video (mostly off a tripod) with this lens. Is IS on the lens needed? (yes I know that is a subjective question) But, in general is the extra 500 worth it for video?

November 3rd, 2009, 04:09 PM	#7
David Chapman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 346	Just to throw this in... The 70-200 2.8 L IS is getting replaced buy the IS II and the IS one's will be discounted. The L is a much better lens (coming from photography) and the IS would definitely help out on the long end (in video IMO). I would watch B&H in the next week or so to keep tabs on the 70-200's price. I it was $1500 a few months back and recently was raised to $2k. If it gets back to $1500 or below, I'm definitely picking that up. There are a number of places to rent this lens by the week, and it's only about $150 or so for 7 days. __________________ David Chapman www.davechapfilms.com

November 3rd, 2009, 05:02 PM	#10
Paul Cascio Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bristol, CT (Home of EPSN) Posts: 1,192	IS is really good for long lenses and hand held shooting, but when you're using a tripod, you should really turn it off if you plan on panning or tilting. __________________ Paul Cascio www.pictureframingschool.com

November 3rd, 2009, 03:41 PM	#2
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I don't think it's worth it if you'll be on sticks. Btw, you can get the same specs for less money from Tamaron. They make good glass too.

November 3rd, 2009, 03:44 PM	#3
Jerry Porter Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Satellite Beach, Fl Posts: 784	Thanks I just ordered the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and hoping for the best I have read good things about it. What really sold me on it is that it's Para-focal like the Canon L's which is why I'm looking at the 70 - 200. Is the Tamron Para-focal also? I spent too many years setting focus like that and it makes life a lot easier for me. That and if you have a steady hand you can do some zoom in and out shots with the DSLR.

November 3rd, 2009, 03:55 PM	#4
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	jerry, did you purchase the Tamron VC(vibration Compensation) version or non VC?

November 3rd, 2009, 03:57 PM	#5
Jerry Porter Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Satellite Beach, Fl Posts: 784	I bought the VC version, it should be here tomorrow. I went with VC on this one because it will be the walk-around lens and if I'm going hand held it's light enough that my skinny body can pull it off for more than 45 seconds... LOL

November 3rd, 2009, 03:59 PM	#6
Jaser Stockert Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: California Posts: 147	where did you purchase? i've been looking for one in stock? thanks!

November 3rd, 2009, 04:51 PM	#9
Jerry Porter Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Satellite Beach, Fl Posts: 784	Thanks Dave, I have a guy coming over right now to pick up the JVC HD110 so I will have the cash to jump when/if the price drops. At 1,500 that's hard to pass up.

November 4th, 2009, 12:27 AM	#11
Keith Moreau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brisbane, California Posts: 530	Are IS lenses meant for still photography still useful in video mode? Or are we just talking about the benefits of IS with stills? I have heard that IS for stills is a godsend and allow 1-2 stops lower shutter speed for the same stability. I have a 7D with the kit 28-135 lens with IS. I haven't done a lot of testing but I heard that IS DLSR stabilization is not really on par with dedicated camcorder image stabilization. Like the lens and the camera communicate and the lens tells the camera to fire off when it knows it's stable. Supposedly this makes it 'jerky' in video mode. Of course I have no proof of this. But I'd like to hear reports from people that are using IS and non IS lenses. I have a Tamron 2.8 17-50 non-IS and I will be getting a Tamron 2.8 17-50 IS on Friday (from Amazon). The Tamron I like it so far, it seems, from initial testing to be pretty sharp and fast. I hope the IS version is as well. if so I'll probably return the non-IS one.

November 4th, 2009, 08:34 AM	#12
Jerry Porter Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Satellite Beach, Fl Posts: 784	Well I just got off the phone with Tamron USA and asked about the 70-200 f2.8 and they assured me that it is also Parfocal. For $680.00 bucks it really seems like a good deal for what I'm going to do with this camera and that is shoot 95% video with it. The lens has great reviews on B&H so I think I might have to go this route. Any one here have one? Can you confirm that it is Parfocal? (and that it is reliably parfocal)