EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video at DVinfo.net

Tariq Peter · June 17th, 2012, 03:14 AM

Hi Guys,

I am in a bit of a dilemma, I am looking to purchase a 70-200 to help groups of people sitting and chatting whilst at their tables at weddings. The lens will mostly be on a tripod but I may possibly be using it hand held. As the 5DMKIII is amazing in low light I am torn between the f4 and 2.8 IS versions.

The f4 is around £700 (used) and the 2.8 is around £1200 (used)

Is it worth £500 more?

Brian David Melnyk · June 17th, 2012, 06:03 AM

hand held the IS would be the difference between usable footage and not usable (unless you have super hero abilities for statue like stability). i think the IS is absolutely worth it, though it is pretty heavy...

Wayne Avanson · June 17th, 2012, 07:31 AM

I have the 2.8 and a mate who I work with sometimes, has the F4. We have shot the same things at low light and both work perfectly well. The F4 is lighter and easier to handle to get smooth shots while handheld, and I agree, IS would help that even more. I wouldn't want to be doing handheld at the 200 with or without IS.

Brian Brown · June 17th, 2012, 10:59 AM

Both lenses are wonderful, but I'm not sure if the extra stop and double the weight is worth it on the 5D Mark III that has such excellent low-light capabilities. I'm purchasing a used 70-200mm/f4L IS this week, to go with my EF 17-40mm/f4L and EF 24-105mm/f4L IS. This will give me a constant f4 from 17 - 200mm range, IS above 24mm, all L glass on stills and video. Eschewing faster glass saves me weight and lots of $ (pounds AND pounds, in your case, ha). For static tripod work, I have several fast vintage Nikkor primes that I love.

There's also two versions of the 2.8L IS lens now, and the Mark II is significantly sharper than its predecessor, probably one of the finest lenses ever made in this range, with a price to match.

Robert Turchick · June 17th, 2012, 11:53 AM

I used to have the f4 non IS and it is a fantastic lens especially for the price.
I shot several TV shows with that lens on both a tripod and shoulder mount. True handheld, forget it. As long as you can come up with enough points of contact it works perfectly. My lightest rig was simply the lens, 7D and a Z-Finder. Pressed up against my face it produced footage as stable as anything.

I recently sold that lens and got the f2.8 USM II. I do a ton of photography and the quality difference is significant.
On the video end it shows less. The lens weighs a ton so on my shoulder rig it's a bit of a chore. The IS makes only a slight difference but that's probably cause my rig is so dialed in and balanced. Remember that the IS should be shut off if mounted on a tripod. It will fight panning and tilting and cause skips.
I don't regret my upgrade a bit as on the photo end it is night and day. But on the video side, the light weight and price of the f4 non IS shouldn't be ignored if youre doing run and gun.

And the other big factor is the mkIII. You truly can shoot useable footage at 6400 iso so the f2.8 vs f4 thing is a bit moot. I use Neat Video noise reduction which cleans it perfectly. And was about $100!
Most of my shooting with the f4 was outdoors (used a variable ND filter) or in controlled lighting situations.
Honestly, shooting at 2.8 is a pain with such a thin DOF. You can get the same bokeh at f8 especially zoomed in! And you have a much better chance of keeping your subject in focus. Things that make the mkIII so important to the equation.

Sabyasachi Patra · June 18th, 2012, 02:36 AM

The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is very good. It is very sharp and the image stabilisation is great. You can see my review here: Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM Review with a barebones 1D Mark IV plus EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM plus EF 2xII TC filmed at 400mm focal length.

The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is heavier and costlier. The cost often tilts the balance for a lot of people in not selecting it. However, one should remember that there are situations when the light is very low and it is better to shoot at f2.8 despite the narrow depth of field. I would like to retain the option of playing around with the narrow depth of field for creative uses.

I am a wildlife guy, so for me the 2.8 is important in all lenses be it 16-35, 24-70 or the 400mm. You can also think of the 100mm f2.8 L IS USM macro lens. That is another incredible lens. Great for handheld videos.

Lens depreciates much slower than the cameras. So you need to consider that as well before arriving at your buying decision.

Bill Pryor · June 18th, 2012, 10:40 AM

I have the F4 version and it's a great lens. The reason I got it was because it's lighter than the 2.8 and can be used safely on a tripod without needing a lens support on a rig or a collar tripod mount. If you have a shoulder rig, you can do acceptable hand held at the wide end, but not when zoomed in very far.

June 17th, 2012, 03:14 AM	#1
Tariq Peter Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Manchester England Posts: 435	EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video Hi Guys, I am in a bit of a dilemma, I am looking to purchase a 70-200 to help groups of people sitting and chatting whilst at their tables at weddings. The lens will mostly be on a tripod but I may possibly be using it hand held. As the 5DMKIII is amazing in low light I am torn between the f4 and 2.8 IS versions. The f4 is around £700 (used) and the 2.8 is around £1200 (used) Is it worth £500 more?

June 17th, 2012, 06:03 AM	#2
Brian David Melnyk Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Winnipeg Canada Posts: 532	Re: EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video hand held the IS would be the difference between usable footage and not usable (unless you have super hero abilities for statue like stability). i think the IS is absolutely worth it, though it is pretty heavy...

June 17th, 2012, 07:31 AM	#3
Wayne Avanson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lancashire UK Posts: 496	Re: EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video I have the 2.8 and a mate who I work with sometimes, has the F4. We have shot the same things at low light and both work perfectly well. The F4 is lighter and easier to handle to get smooth shots while handheld, and I agree, IS would help that even more. I wouldn't want to be doing handheld at the 200 with or without IS. __________________ Avey theactionhouse.com

June 17th, 2012, 10:59 AM	#4
Brian Brown Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Estes Park, CO USA Posts: 426	Re: EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video Both lenses are wonderful, but I'm not sure if the extra stop and double the weight is worth it on the 5D Mark III that has such excellent low-light capabilities. I'm purchasing a used 70-200mm/f4L IS this week, to go with my EF 17-40mm/f4L and EF 24-105mm/f4L IS. This will give me a constant f4 from 17 - 200mm range, IS above 24mm, all L glass on stills and video. Eschewing faster glass saves me weight and lots of $ (pounds AND pounds, in your case, ha). For static tripod work, I have several fast vintage Nikkor primes that I love. There's also two versions of the 2.8L IS lens now, and the Mark II is significantly sharper than its predecessor, probably one of the finest lenses ever made in this range, with a price to match. Last edited by Brian Brown; June 17th, 2012 at 11:00 AM. Reason: typo

June 17th, 2012, 11:53 AM	#5
Robert Turchick Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 1,389	Re: EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video I used to have the f4 non IS and it is a fantastic lens especially for the price. I shot several TV shows with that lens on both a tripod and shoulder mount. True handheld, forget it. As long as you can come up with enough points of contact it works perfectly. My lightest rig was simply the lens, 7D and a Z-Finder. Pressed up against my face it produced footage as stable as anything. I recently sold that lens and got the f2.8 USM II. I do a ton of photography and the quality difference is significant. On the video end it shows less. The lens weighs a ton so on my shoulder rig it's a bit of a chore. The IS makes only a slight difference but that's probably cause my rig is so dialed in and balanced. Remember that the IS should be shut off if mounted on a tripod. It will fight panning and tilting and cause skips. I don't regret my upgrade a bit as on the photo end it is night and day. But on the video side, the light weight and price of the f4 non IS shouldn't be ignored if youre doing run and gun. And the other big factor is the mkIII. You truly can shoot useable footage at 6400 iso so the f2.8 vs f4 thing is a bit moot. I use Neat Video noise reduction which cleans it perfectly. And was about $100! Most of my shooting with the f4 was outdoors (used a variable ND filter) or in controlled lighting situations. Honestly, shooting at 2.8 is a pain with such a thin DOF. You can get the same bokeh at f8 especially zoomed in! And you have a much better chance of keeping your subject in focus. Things that make the mkIII so important to the equation. __________________ The older I get, the better I was!

June 18th, 2012, 02:36 AM	#6
Sabyasachi Patra Major Player Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Delhi, India Posts: 507	Re: EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is very good. It is very sharp and the image stabilisation is great. You can see my review here: Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM Review with a barebones 1D Mark IV plus EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM plus EF 2xII TC filmed at 400mm focal length. The 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is heavier and costlier. The cost often tilts the balance for a lot of people in not selecting it. However, one should remember that there are situations when the light is very low and it is better to shoot at f2.8 despite the narrow depth of field. I would like to retain the option of playing around with the narrow depth of field for creative uses. I am a wildlife guy, so for me the 2.8 is important in all lenses be it 16-35, 24-70 or the 400mm. You can also think of the 100mm f2.8 L IS USM macro lens. That is another incredible lens. Great for handheld videos. Lens depreciates much slower than the cameras. So you need to consider that as well before arriving at your buying decision. __________________ Wild Tiger Productions http://www.indiawilds.com/about.htm

June 18th, 2012, 10:40 AM	#7
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Re: EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM 5DMK3 Video I have the F4 version and it's a great lens. The reason I got it was because it's lighter than the 2.8 and can be used safely on a tripod without needing a lens support on a rig or a collar tripod mount. If you have a shoulder rig, you can do acceptable hand held at the wide end, but not when zoomed in very far.