Canon 70-200 f/4 IS vs f/2.8 IS II for VIDEO

Hello. I really didn't think this was going to be an issue for me but while doing some other research and setting up my "mid range zoom lens" comparison (24-70 f/4 vs 24-105 f/4 mkII) I ran across a post about the f/4 being pretty great for video and not needing the f/2.8 on the 70-200. Just one post though.....

Quick time sensitive background. I JUST bought a 2.8 IS II from a used site for a great deal and thought I was done and done for life. I have my "dream lens" and now I can just check that off my list. But then after reading this post about the f/4 being good for video and then again listing 2 major benefits of price and weight (both half basically), It got me thinking again. And because I just got this lens, I need to make a decision on whether to keep it or not by next Wednesday (March 14th) for return purposes. It looks like I have the option to get an f/4 used for a pretty good deal to test against, but I just want to make sure I'm not being a total idiot.

I searched and searched yesterday and again today for articles, message boards or video's details the VIDEO performance difference between the 2 lenses especially in low light like a concert or theatre but there is really nothing out there. It's all for photos, understandably of course.

I just want to know if there are any good first hand comparisons between the 2 for video.

Part of me wants to just forget I read anything, keep the lens, know that I have a great lens for video, photo, let my toddler get older (and his sister is being born in July) and just grow into the lens, even if I'm not using it as much for Photos now, I will be when they are doing sports, activities etc.. The other part of me just got to thinking about saving $700-800 and making some other hard decisions very easy. Let the f/4 do fine for video (24fps at 50 shutter speed 99% of the time) and I can get by with photos for half the price and weight.

Side question/note. I currently shoot on 80d's (2 of them) and will most likely making the move on one of them to upgrade to 6dmkii (do I'd have both). Would that change the situation "low light wise" by video on the 6dmkii?

I don't want to miss out on the deal I got on the f/2.8 by second guessing, but I also don't want to waste some money if I can just return it and get the f/4. I also get nervous about putting too much on the credit card just for comparison sake.

Any advice would be killer.

Cheers, Chris

One potential problem with f/4 is that its stabilizer is pretty loud.

I owned the f/4 non-IS and the IS Mark 1 and although I liked the contrast and colors of the f/4 non-IS I'd still go for the 2.8.

I only used the Mark 2 once when I rented it for a few days and I thought it was great. I think you made a good choice with the Mark 2 and I'd go with that, given the choice.

Tashi 1 wrote:

I have both lenses the 70-200 f4 IS and the f2.8 II. Funny I saw your thread as I’m thinking about selling the f4 and getting another 2.8. I shoot video on two C100’s, one is a C100 mkII. Also shoot on a 5D3, and an 80d. I got the 80d specifically for my Letus Helix because of the incredible AF.

Call me crazy but I see a difference in the two lenses and prefer the f2.8. The f2.8 just pops more, with more color and vibrancy. I don’t know if it is the difference I see between f4 and f2.8, I tend to think not. As you can see from the video I need at least a 2.8 for low light.

In this video the front angle is with the C100 and f2.8, the left angle is the f4 on the C100 mkII, While the closer shot of the guitarists left hand is with the 24-105 f4 and the 80d. I used Pro Mist filters on all the cameras. I got tired of trying to match the 5D3 and my C100’ so I bought another C100. Now I see a slight difference due to the two different lenses and want another f2.8 to make editing in post easier.

so, there you have it. Both lenses together. Hope this might help.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=46koasuo0S8

This is exactly what I was looking for! Thanks.

I do shoot in low light for things like this and without the time to test extensively I'm glad you use a similar set up. I was just "in front" of the camera shooting some acoustic guitar duo stuff (I've been performing live for 20 years) and the place where we shot had 2 c100's with 24-70 2.8 II's and a 5d mk3 with the 70-200 2.8, along with something Panasonic. I was trying to talk a little shop there with the guy but he was pretty busy and didn't want to really answer any questions. Usually it's the other way around, the "talent" gets bugged by the audio and video guys, not the other way around. HAHA. It's fun for me because I am both sides all the time.

But in a short he said he would never use f/4 for live video or conferences, just not enough light.

DId you find that shooting on the 5diii was better than the 80d for the light? Does that Full Frame gain you anything video?

Anyway, thanks for the advice. I think I am going to keep the 2.8. After reading the replies, I realized that I did get a pretty good deal, I could probably make money on the lens if I decided.

Now I have to go off and decide between 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/4 for run and gun. the 24-70 2.8 II is out of my price range, and I need the IS. Luckily I have both of those lenses to compare by tomorrow.

Cheers

BrunoLandMedia wrote:

Hello. I really didn't think this was going to be an issue for me but while doing some other research and setting up my "mid range zoom lens" comparison (24-70 f/4 vs 24-105 f/4 mkII) I ran across a post about the f/4 being pretty great for video and not needing the f/2.8 on the 70-200. Just one post though.....

Quick time sensitive background. I JUST bought a 2.8 IS II from a used site for a great deal and thought I was done and done for life. I have my "dream lens" and now I can just check that off my list. But then after reading this post about the f/4 being good for video and then again listing 2 major benefits of price and weight (both half basically), It got me thinking again. And because I just got this lens, I need to make a decision on whether to keep it or not by next Wednesday (March 14th) for return purposes. It looks like I have the option to get an f/4 used for a pretty good deal to test against, but I just want to make sure I'm not being a total idiot.

I searched and searched yesterday and again today for articles, message boards or video's details the VIDEO performance difference between the 2 lenses especially in low light like a concert or theatre but there is really nothing out there. It's all for photos, understandably of course.

I just want to know if there are any good first hand comparisons between the 2 for video.

Part of me wants to just forget I read anything, keep the lens, know that I have a great lens for video, photo, let my toddler get older (and his sister is being born in July) and just grow into the lens, even if I'm not using it as much for Photos now, I will be when they are doing sports, activities etc.. The other part of me just got to thinking about saving $700-800 and making some other hard decisions very easy. Let the f/4 do fine for video (24fps at 50 shutter speed 99% of the time) and I can get by with photos for half the price and weight.

Side question/note. I currently shoot on 80d's (2 of them) and will most likely making the move on one of them to upgrade to 6dmkii (do I'd have both). Would that change the situation "low light wise" by video on the 6dmkii?

I don't want to miss out on the deal I got on the f/2.8 by second guessing, but I also don't want to waste some money if I can just return it and get the f/4. I also get nervous about putting too much on the credit card just for comparison sake.

Any advice would be killer.

Cheers, Chris

Chris.

I only do stills, not video.     However....

Years back I wanted to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Then Canon introduced the smaller lighter f/4 L IS. Less expensive, improved color and sharpness compared to the f/2.8 Version 1. Since the f/4 L IS was so good and rumors of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II on the horizon, I bought the f/4 L IS in 2009. Loved it, used it a ton with great results.

Then the announcement of the f/2.8 L IS hit the streets several months later. I could sell the f/4 L IS and apply. A few months later in January, 2011, I bought the f/2.8 L IS Mark II outright. Used it, loved it, no complaints what so ever. I could just put up the f/4 L IS and unload it.......

After turning 50 and coming back from numerous trips to Europe and seeing how my newer 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/4 L IS have been performing Hand Held in the Basilica's where tripods are prohibited, I have now been leaving the wonderful f/2.8 L IS at home in favor of its smaller, lighter equally impressive 70-200 f/4 L IS. Why lug around the additional weight?

Last week for Event work, I grabbed the f/2.8.

Sooooo.... I would keep the f/2.8 L IS Mark II. In the future you may find for other work having a smaller rig with same focal range may be an added benefit.

They are both really great lenses to have and utilize.

I find the f/2.8 aperture and solid, quiet IS extremely useful for video. I only shoot a little video, though, but I've seen several professional crews using this lens on assignments.

Tashi 1 wrote:

Yea, we are somewhat in the same boat. I'm a guitar maker who figured out long ago the advantages of do it yourself free YouTube video advertising. At first I filmed myself playing my guitars. I've spent $50,000 on video and audio equipment, and haven't regretted a single purchase, I've only made money from it. At times though I have to admit I schedule shipments from Adorama and B&H to arrive when my wife is at work. To her thank God, all lenses look the same. Although when the 80D arrived a few months ago, she asked me why I needed another camera.... I though that was a silly question.
What at first was a basic set up and knowing nothing, to more than a decade later and still knowing nothing.... ha!

I am with you. 20 years in music and I have a full recording studio full of preamps, UAudio Apollos, Compressors, microphones, a rack full of guitars, 25+ pedals, and the wife just rolls her eyes.

One other consideration is getting the 70-200 f2.8 version I, I'm also considering that if I run across a good deal, and have a buyer for my f4. I just find that the added stop is absolutely essential especially if you are going to shoot solo guitar or music videos indoors without blinding your talent.

Yes. I've decided for now, I am keeping the 2.8. I've done some video with it and photos this weekend and just love it.

I love the soft look of the 5D III. Personally, I find the sharpness of HD and 4K on people up close to be too much, the 5D3 excels in portrait shots. Thus the reason I've started using the Tiffen Pro mist filters to soften the detail in skin. So I find the 5D3 to be great for that. My problem with the 5D3 for video is I often forget to change the shutter rate, picture profile etc. from the photo settings which I use more than the video these days. With the C100's everything is right there at your fingertips, and under pressure of setting up matching exposure and color balance, audio etc. it's far less stressful than the menu diving and trying to recall if I remembered to do this and that on the 5D3
Between the 5D3 and the 80D I've had good results with the 80D for video. I got it specifically for use on a gimbal because of the AF. The 5D3 of course doesn't have AF. The image of the 5D3 I find harder to match with the C100's because it seems the image is more saturated than the C100's, and the image of the C100 tend to be warmer where as the image of the 5D3 is greener. Setting the white balance to the same kelvin on both cameras doesn't yield the same result.

So for me, I have 2 80's at the moment. I've been considering the jump to a FF and have ruled out the 6d2and the 5d4 is too expensive. Do you see getting a good deal 5d3 as an advantage since I already have an 80d? I can use the 80 for the run and gun, and tele photo with the crop, or the lighter travel, but 5d3 for more pro photos and "B" camera to match the 80d.

I don't see myself getting a c100, and work prob won't for the next few years. Haveing 2 DSLRS has been great along with a G40 camcorder for long shots. I feel like I would use both for different situations and that could be super key. But if you don't think they match, or it's not worth getting rid of an 80d, let me konw

Also, I wouldn't be runing and gunning with the 5d3. I would set it up for B shots, and also more as Photo.

This video was the first time I used the 80D and felt it was a better match to the C100's than the 5D3..... probably just got lucky. That said, I'm not a professional colorist and others I'm sure would have less problems matching cameras.
I dont like the photography side of the 80D after working for years with the 5D3. The images are much noiser than the 5D3, and I just find the images far more pleasing with the minimal effort I put in than the 80D. Of course I love the flip out screen and find it hard to live without. But for what I do I don't see the point of a crop señsor camera if you have a Full Frame for photography.

My Current lenses. What do you think?
70-200,
16-35 f/4L (Great deal and it looks so good, even if I don't step to FF for a while, I'm keeping it!)
24-70 f/4 vs 24-105 f/4 II (doing tons of tests on these currently.

PS wish I knew someone who could lend me a FF to test, I just don't know anyone and trust me, I've tried. HA

Anyway good luck, and HODL on to that 2.8!

Holding it!

Cheers, Chris

BAK wrote:

you'll be able to sell it later for what you paid.

So keep it, use it, and see how good your movies are.

BAK

Cheers, KEEPING IT!

Thanks!