C300 with Canon OS lens

[Paul Cronin]

How well does the camera work handheld with Canon's OS lens?

A lot of my work is hand held it tough conditions and with 2/3" stabilized glass so expensive it would be nice to see some Canon footage. Not big crews with budgets to get it right, just a few owners who shoot handheld and use Canon L OS glass.

[Chris Hurd]

OS? Do you mean IS, is in Image stabilization? The Canon
nomenclature is to use the term IS. They don't bother with
the "optical" differentiation, because it's always optical on
any EF lens, including their L series (and also their EF-S
lens line as well).

[Graham King]

I shoot probably 80% handheld. 2 years on Canon SLRs and now the C300. My go to glass is the 70-200 2.8 IS II, 17-55 IS, 24-105 IS. Really happy with the IS on all these lenses. Makes a big difference compared to non-IS lenses. The only time is shoot non IS is when shooting primes in very low light situations. But of course, being shoulder mounted is important for the best handheld footage.

[Nigel Akam]

Just bought the 17-55 for this reason. The IS makes the difference for handheld

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

From my experience I can tell you there is a significant difference between IS and standard lenses, when handheld.

[Paul Cronin]

Sorry Chris,

Yes "IS" is what Canon calls their OS lens.

Thanks for the responses guys. I am really looking for samples/test to show how sharp the image stays with IS on and handheld.

[Alister Chapman]

And OS on Canon fit Sigmas works too.

[Thierry Humeau]

Yes! Canon IS works very well on C300.

[Paul Cronin]

Do any of you have good examples?

Last year I tested the HJ15, 2/3" Canon lens and it worked well but made the picture very soft. Also tested Fujinon OS unit for 2/3" lens and it was very sharp and just as stable. Both of these were used a lot in my business last year. They are expensive options so now I am interested in seeing examples of how stable the C300 is with Canon IS lens, and if it remains VERY sharp? This could be a much cheaper alternative.

[Charles Papert]

Paul, many operational differences between the 2/3" zooms and still zooms, which were never designed for continuous shooting. Starting with the shortened zoom range (the longest being 10x with substantial aperture ramping and most of the fast ones hovering around 3x) and continuing through the "drive-by-wire" focusing that will likely feel sloppy and challenging to one used to the mechanical control of a 2/3" lens--and then of course there's no servo zoom control. For me personally, they are fine still lenses but I'm not a fan when it comes to using them in a cine environment (I use Tokinas instead--but the one feature I do miss is indeed the IS capability).

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Charles appreciate your input.

Agree the HJ15x and the Fujinon OS both for 2/3" have a great feel and I can nail the shot quickly which is needed most of the time. Just looking into other options to reduce cost. Guess the best thing to do is rent one and give it a test.