70-200 L-series 2.8

[Alan Maughan]

Guys,

After using a friends lens I realise I need one. My budget is tight and the option of the non IS version is attractive at around half the price. My first question is how important is IS to my video shooting?

As for taking stills I am wondering exactly how important IS again is? when shooting at 2.8 there would seem to be enough light for shutter speeds well over twice the focal length. I appreciate Cannon must have added IS for a valid reason but will I be seriously handicapped without it?

[Andy Wilkinson]

Hi Alan,

personally I think the IS is terrific and of much use when shooting video hand held. I have the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. This "IS or not IS" question gets debated pretty often. If you search the 7D Forum with '70-200 IS' or similar terms (and indeed the 5DMkII and the other Canon forum) you'll quickly find a number of threads which I think you'll find very interesting to read - a couple of typical examples below that contain a lot of useful info, example videos and other related links to get you going.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ilization.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...-f2-8-non.html

Hope this helps and let us know what you decide to go for in the end!

[Bill Grant]

I'll add to that Alan, that when you're on a tripod, there are a million little micro shakes from panning or adjustment that get smoothed out with the IS. The only way to do it would be to set the shot and not touch it. Otherwise you should have IS.
Bill

[Alan Maughan]

Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated.

[Steve Oakley]

IS is a WASTE of money.

when using a tripod you should turn IS off or you'll get these weird problems with starts and stops on pans.

realistically you should not be expecting to HH a 200MM lens ! maybe 70mm, but not 200.

the tamron 70-200 2.8 is 1/3 the price of the canon, yet is optically on par with the V2 model.

[John Wiley]

A "WASTE" of money might be an exaggeration, but I agree with everything else Steve said.

I've got the Tamron 70-200 and have never once felt the need to have IS. I also would never dream of attempting to hand hold a 200mm lens (or even a 70mm).

Sure, there are times when the IS might help you save the shot, but I prefer to not put myself in situations where I'll need it (ie: use proper support).

[Jason McDonald]

For shooting stills, it all depends on whether your subject is moving or not. There's plenty of IS information (Or VR for Nikon lenses) and how they function.

I'd look at the 70-200 4L IS. I can't tell the difference in sharpness between this and the 2.8.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Jason McDonald

I'd look at the 70-200 4L IS. I can't tell the difference in sharpness between this and the 2.8.

very true,
outdoors in bright light though;

Originally Posted by Alan Maughan

My first question is how important is IS to my video shooting?

more important than for stills, without IS you will be tripod based all the time, Canon with IS on i can shoot video handheld @ 200mm, and it is not shaky, Sigma IS version half the price of Canon, has very sharp optics, but I would say that IS is practically is non existent

[Ben Winter]

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

IS is a WASTE of money.

when using a tripod you should turn IS off or you'll get these weird problems with starts and stops on pans.

realistically you should not be expecting to HH a 200MM lens ! maybe 70mm, but not 200.

the tamron 70-200 2.8 is 1/3 the price of the canon, yet is optically on par with the V2 model.

I handhold a 70-200mm regularly, and it's only because of IS that I get away with some really great shots.

The "weird problems with starts and stops on pans" is exactly what that stabilizer mode switch is there to correct. The manual gives a good explanation, but in general, switch to mode 2 for any panning shots.

Steve is correct that the Tamron image quality is on par, especially for video shooting. However it's more difficult to pull focus with the Tamron.

Originally Posted by Alan Maughan

My first question is how important is IS to my video shooting?

Virtually essential in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Best of luck.

[Jonathan Shaw]

What about looking at the new Sigma 70-200 with IS, plus it covers full frame. I have one and it's a great lens, only real draw back is that it isn't weather proofed like the Canon.

[Tim Sargent]

I bought the NON-IS version and seriously couldnt be happier.

Its awesome!

[Ger Griffin]

I started asking all these questions recently and after a long debate and struggle justifying it I realised I needed (or maybe I just wanted it) IS. I like running around grabbing quick shots with a monopod but without IS this isnt doable. Needing a tripod does hold you back.

Other things to consider: the t3i has 3x and with the 17-55 its not far off what the 70-200 does. Its surprisingly good. But not quite as good as 70-200 obviously. But so much lighter.

Anyway I figured I wanted the Canon with IS and ended up paying the extra for the new 70-200 IS II . A big purchase yes but I make my living from this so I justified it that way. But as for the quality. Wow is all I can say. I had been using the 135mmf2 prime but always found myself not ideally placed for the shot. This fixes that problem while maintaing that amazing look.

As was said, its true that IS is essential for all video except static shots. Even on a tripod when hunting for shots in a room I was missing quite alot of the 'money moments' due to jitter from not having IS. Maybe heavy duty tripod legs and head would have helped there but my stuff is pretty lightwight.

[Jonathan Shaw]

I agree IS is important for video, especially at the long end of the lens. Unless on a tripod I always use IS and it does make a difference.

[Bernard Lau]

If you had the money, I suggest you go for the IS version. It will help with steadying some shots and it's great when u use it for photos.

Though, honestly, I've never used mine with the IS turned off... So can't make give you a real comparison.

[Andrew Dean]

I often grip for other people. After using one of basically every 70/80-200 variation, i opted to buy the 70-200 2.8L II with the IS for myself. The "you should turn it off while on a tripod" and "you shouldn't be handholding at 200mm anyways" arguments that continue to crop up definitely apply to the IS on other brands of lenses. I didn't like the Tamron IS at all. Its very much like canon mode 2, which is great for stills, but horribly frustrating for video.

However, mode 1 on the canon 70-200IS is just dreamy. It does exactly what I want - to smooth out the hiccups and bobbles and shimmies, while still feeling like i'm in control. When you switch it on its like you stabilized your hands. Its not my first plan of attack, but handholding at 200 is extremely doable. In fact, its not uncommon for me at 200 with the lens in my hand generates a smoother and more useful shot than the A cameraman with a non-IS lens on some giant shoulder rig.

Its a personal preference, but I would advise strongly against taking anyone's advise on IS unless they have specifically shot on the canon 70-200 is. Every time i've encountered a sceptic on set, i've handed them my camera and said "play". On my 7d, the 200 is the eq of a 320mm lens, and yet after a few minutes (a tad longer for the stubborn) every single skeptic cameraman has come back and said "ok, yeah, thats pretty incredible. I might need to get one of those..."

For music videos, docos and things where the director wants the "organic feeling of a handheld camera", i reach for this lens with no other support gear. Its a heavy beast, but holding it like a normal dslr i find it less tiring and more useful than the "battle rig" guys with an entire transformer on their shoulder.

My 2c anyways. Some people can never get used to them, but I love it. Its a "cold dead fingers" lens for me.