Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

IS or no IS (on EF-mount lenses)

M

Matt W.

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Do you prefer to use IS on your EF-mount lenses? I know some say it's critical for video and others say it's awful... over-compensates and locks on and is jerky. I'm on the fence, some lenses seem ok, others not so much. The Tamron lenses, for instance have great IS for stills but not video. Undecided on whether or not I should upgrade from the 70-200mm f2.8 L to the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II. Hmm.. Ok with the IS on the 17-55mm f2.8 IS so far, but it does have fall off on larger than 1.6X sensors.
 
i find the IS works like a dream with the 17-55 and the 24-105....not sure if the IS (VR?) actually works with the tamron lenses on scarlet or epic?
 
The IS greatly depends on the make & model and in general I use it on all Canon L-series glass - especially on the 70-200.
But there is another issue - which version of the 70-200 non-IS do You have? If it is the first version then upgrade to the mkII without even thinking - as impossible as it might seem (even the mkI was an amazing lens), Canon has greatly improve this lens with mkII and the IS in particular is even more amazing. This is now arguably the most amazing L-series lens there is and mosdef my favorite of the lot. You won't regret it...

:sifone: Peter
 
What the heck are you guys shooting that you need a lans that runs out to 200mm? (Nature photography I guess?)

In shooting two features, I've never used a lens longer than 135, and that only like twice. I actually sold our 200mm prime because I could never conceive of a use for it.

In normal circumstances we're never longer than an 85.

Perhaps I need to learn how to shoot!

Stephen
 
I'll use longer focal lengths for some inserts, near macro stuff. Sometimes just because the zoom has poor close focus and it's the easiest way to get close on a zoomed in insert. I like it for orthographic-style projection when a car is driving toward the camera or for emphasizing motion on the X and Y axes or isolating something in depth when the surroundings (woods or a crowd) are busy and need to be compressed and blurred to isolate the subject. Generally I'll use the zoom between 70mm and 135mm for conventional coverage. That said, I just make stuff up as I go. I have no idea what I'm doing for the most part. For hero Peckinpah shots and compressing against a dangerous or distance background (explosion in slow motion, sunset) of course a long lens is super cool.

I'm debating between upgrading and not; I already know I find the focal lengths useful. Optically I can't see the upgrade being worth it for that alone, but if the IS on the 70-200mm IS II is smooth and designed to work well for motion, I might be sold. I find IS really ugly in motion at times and am cautious about taking the risk. I do like it for stills.
 
Matt - I have the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS and have used the v1 before extensively. Trust me when I tell you that both the IQ and the IS on their own are worth the upgrade - combined even more so. The IS works great with both tripod and handheld motions...

Stephen - indeed wildlife (and sports) are the main uses for the longer lengths, as is some nature work. Forget the 200mm - I am becoming more increasingly addicted to the 800mm, which is quickly becoming my favorite lens and starting to make the 70-200 jealous. In particular when it comes to animals and insects - you want to be as far as possible from the subject, as not to disturb their natural behavior. Having said that - I use the 70-200 frequently at its 200mm end even for non-documentary work. Another amazing use is extreme closeups where you can use (super cheap) tube extensions instead of (expensive and IQ-reducing) diopters. Unlike the diopters, the tubes do not add additional glass into the light path between the subject/scene and the camera sensor, thus eliminating further image degradation caused by optical distortion (chromatic aberration, softening, vignetting, etc...) and reducing the amount of light (speed of the lens) reaching the sensor...

Scarlet_Eclipse_800mm.jpg


:sifone: Peter
 
IS is great, especially the IS in the recent Canon L series lenses. The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens has got a great IS and is good for handholding. I even use it with a EF 2x II TC and shoot at 400mm end. The Canon EF 24-105 f4 L IS USM also has got a nice IS. The 100mm macro IS lens of canon is also a great performer. I use these lenses not only for wildlife but also documentary and corporate stuff.

On the contrary, the IS of my Canon 400mm f2.8 L IS USM is not usable for video. This lens has now been replaced by the version II and I haven't tested that for video.

Apart from wildlife, one can also use tele lenses to flatten the perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top