Canon 70-200 f2.8 for Video?

[Silas Barker]

Hey guys, I was just curious if anyone has used the Canon 70-200 f2.8 for video shooting?
I have the 100mm 2.8 macro, and was thinking of getting the 200mm 2.8 for even more depth of field for waist up and head shots for film making.

Any advice is appreciated! (Probably get the Version I, has better bokah then Version 2 I hear.)

[Jerry Porter]

Not to immediately derail your thread, but how do you like the 100 L??? That was going to be my next purchase.

[Silas Barker]

The 100mm is awesome, I love it, and the macro is amazing!
I have the 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 100mm 2.8 macro, and the 70-300 4.5-5.6 All Canon Lenses.

Check out this shot here someone photographed with the 200mm 2.8 - the background with bokah is awesome! I can do some stuff like that with the 100mm but 200mm at 2.8 is like twice the bokah!

Beach Sunset Portrait

Gallery of 200mm 2.8 images
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Sample Pictures

[Nate Haustein]

Canon 70-200mm is a pretty common lens to shoot video with nowadays. The image-stabilized version is a must. Put that right on a tripod head and you've got rock solid telephoto.

Have used both I and II versions and like the II version better based on usability. The newer II version just felt smoother and easier to shoot with - I was even able to pull off smooth zooms while shooting a stage show.

Expensive though - might be cheaper to rent. I know I can get one for about $50/day.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

A friend of mine uses it for corporate videos with great results.

[Jon Fairhurst]

We just got one at my workplace. The IS rocks. I had shot a previous company meeting with my 200/2.8L II (no IS), and it was really difficult to control the tripod without introducing noticeable vibrations. And when the vibrations were smooth enough that the audience wouldn't notice - I still noticed the wiggle.

Using the 70-200/2.8L IS II, the shots were silky smooth. It removes yet one more issue that can pull the audience out of the story.

The focus ring could have more throw, but I can't complain. It feels better than any of my other Canon lens focus rings, including the EF 100/2.8 and the EF 200/2.8L II. It's no Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 though.

Of course, the optics are excellent. My 200L is wonderfully sharp, and based on 3rd party reviews, the 70-200 II is even sharper.

Another lens to consider is the EF 135/2L. It's cheaper, faster, as sharp, and has a longer throw focus ring. It lacks IS though. If you have nice grip gear and are shooting for yourself, this is a lens to consider. (It's the baby brother to my 200L.) If you are shooting paid gigs, I'd go for the 70-200. IS lowers the risk of getting some shake that makes the client unhappy. According to my son, every 5D2 shoot he has done in LA has included the 70-200 with IS.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I should also mention that I used to own the EF 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS. I sold it to get the 200/2.8L II. The 200L simply kills the 70-300 for sharpness and clarity. I was especially displeased with the 70-300 on wildlife photos. The fur of a rabbit or deer on the 70-300 would look crunchy, digital, distorted, and generally unpleasant. With the 200L, it has that wonderful combination of sharpness and creaminess. I have yet to shoot wildlife with the 70-200L, but I would be surprised if it didn't match or surpass the 200L in quality.

This shows the sharpness of the 70-200L. Roll over to see the 200L. Frankly, I think he had a bad copy of the prime. And I might have had a bad copy of the 70-300 IS. In any case, the 70-200 looks fantastic.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Image Quality

[Mark Watson]

It's a solid all-around great performer. I got mine for $1,800 in Bangkok a few years ago. Still sells for $2,600 in Japan. Normally Mt Fuji is buried behind a haze, but Sunday it was rather clear, so I grabbed the 7D and 70-200 f2.8L and got this shot. I think I need a Zacuto lens finder, I was left trusting the auto focus due to the glare off my LCD. Get the lens, you won't regret it.

Mark

[Ken Diewert]

Hey Silas,

I shoot with the 70-200 2.8L non-IS a lot. You do need sticks under it most of the time, and it is sensitive to vibration if locked off, at the tele end. But I've had lots of great stuff from 70-135 and above. A friend just bought the IS version, so I should try it to compare.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Lots of opinions and good info about the 70-200mm F2.8 Canon lens (with or without IS) on here. A few example threads worth reading linked below in related EOS forum areas.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ies-2-8-a.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...0mm-2-8-a.html

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

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

There are many more threads - searching around the various EOS forums can link you to 10+ further good threads in seconds....but this will certainly get you started!

Bottom line, lots of people use the 70-200mm F2.8 Canon lens for video, with or without IS. Personally, I think IS is a must. Have fun choosing!

[Silas Barker]

Sounds like

1) the 70-200mm is something that would be very useful for film making

2) unless the lens has IS its not any good for handheld, (I have the 100mm macro without IS and yes you need a tripod for that, so I can see the need for IS)

Now - I'll just have to figure out a way to justify the costs!

[Jerry Porter]

Originally Posted by Silas Barker

Now - I'll just have to figure out a way to justify the costs!

That's always the trick isn't it.....

[Ken Diewert]

Originally Posted by Silas Barker

Sounds like

1) the 70-200mm is something that would be very useful for film making

2) unless the lens has IS its not any good for handheld, (I have the 100mm macro without IS and yes you need a tripod for that, so I can see the need for IS)

Now - I'll just have to figure out a way to justify the costs!

Silas,

I'd be very surprised if you could handhold the lens for video at 200mm even with IS. Especially on the 5d with rolling shutter. It might work with a shoulder rig but I'd be interested to hear other experiences when handholding this lens shooting video.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Silas Barker

1) the 70-200mm is something that would be very useful for film making

2) unless the lens has IS its not any good for handheld, (I have the 100mm macro without IS and yes you need a tripod for that, so I can see the need for IS)

3) IS is important even on a tripod. It reduces micro-vibrations, keeping the image sharper and more attractive. Without IS, you need an excellent tripod and you still need a light touch.

Regarding handheld... I once shot a bullfight with the 200L and 2x extender handheld. No bull. ;) First, I set the shutter speed to 1/400 or faster to eliminate motion blur. Second, the best footage is when the wall is not shown. The bull, the matadors, and the dirt are "organic", so they don't draw attention to the rolling shutter. I was seated, using a rig, and had my elbows on the railing. Focusing was hit and miss with the 5D2 and no follow focus. Only so much footage was good, but some was very good - aside from the brutality, of course.

In essence, a fast shutter speed reduces the need for IS - just like with photos. :)

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

3) IS is important even on a tripod. It reduces micro-vibrations, keeping the image sharper and more attractive. Without IS, you need an excellent tripod and you still need a light touch.

+1

IS is almost mandatory to use with sliders, especially manual ones. It also counteracts the effects of wind, when shooting exteriors.