Which 70-200 lens to get?

I realize this topic might appear better suited for the lens section, but I'm really only concerned with how it relates to video.

I need a a 70-200 before I shoot my next wedding in January. I'm curious to know if anyone has used both the IS and non-IS models of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8's, and if so, were there IQ improvements in addition to IS when comparing the two? Would spending the extra money on the IS version be worthwhile in regards to work for wedding videos?

IS can be handy at times, so long as you're not using any sort of camera-mounted microphone for the audio, as it's fairly noisy.

You still have to be careful about how you move the camera, because the IS in still lenses is not designed for motion, and will appear to "drift" as you move the camera, in which case you should probably use the panning mode so it only stabilizes vertically.

IQ differences between lenses are largely irrelevant for video as far as sharpness goes, since you're recording the equivalent of a 2 megapixel image, and aliasing reduces effective resolution to even less.

If choosing the f4 with IS or 2.8 without, get the 2.8. The boken on the 2.8 is lush and 100+mm hand held has the potential to look awful so should be tripod mounted any way .'. no need for IS.

You should consider the new sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS

I've had the 70-200L in a bunch of flavors. f/4, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS mark I and mark II. The f/2.8 IS mark II is hands down the best zoom lens I've ever owned, and I've owned plenty. It's as sharp as my L primes, the stabilization works amazingly well and the bokeh is just beautiful. In the midst of considering moving to Sony and their Zeiss glass, having to not shoot with the 70-200L IS mkII is keeping me from making any rash decisions. That zoom has actually got me back into using a zoom as a primary lens instead of my beloved 85L or 135L! Yes, it's THAT good.

akivisuals wrote in post #15394159
I've had the 70-200L in a bunch of flavors. f/4, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS mark I and mark II. The f/2.8 IS mark II is hands down the best zoom lens I've ever owned, and I've owned plenty. It's as sharp as my L primes, the stabilization works amazingly well and the bokeh is just beautiful. In the midst of considering moving to Sony and their Zeiss glass, having to not shoot with the 70-200L IS mkII is keeping me from making any rash decisions. That zoom has actually got me back into using a zoom as a primary lens instead of my beloved 85L or 135L! Yes, it's THAT good.

Are you talking photo or video use?

I use it for both. Perhaps you don't need the extra sharpness for video but I'd rather have it and it doesn't show up rather than not have it and hope that it's sharp enough. The stabilization works great for video BTW.

ChadAndreo wrote in post #15394068
You should consider the new sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS

I would strongly recommend not getting this lens for video. While zooming out, intuitively, your subject is moving closer to you, which means you're pulling focus towards you as well. the zoom and focus ring turn in the opposite direction in this regards, which is fine for photo, but terrible for video. sigma makes awesome lenses, but this lens in particular, isn't all that great if you plan on shooting video while pulling focus and zooming.

and everyone stfu about not zooming and pulling focus while shooting, there are plenty of applications where you do this as a camera operator and can't have follow focuses or rigs attached.

akivisuals wrote in post #15394159
I've had the 70-200L in a bunch of flavors. f/4, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS mark I and mark II. The f/2.8 IS mark II is hands down the best zoom lens I've ever owned, and I've owned plenty. It's as sharp as my L primes, the stabilization works amazingly well and the bokeh is just beautiful. In the midst of considering moving to Sony and their Zeiss glass, having to not shoot with the 70-200L IS mkII is keeping me from making any rash decisions. That zoom has actually got me back into using a zoom as a primary lens instead of my beloved 85L or 135L! Yes, it's THAT good.

the 70-200 2.8 II is an amazing lens in terms of stabilization as well. regardless of what people say about using IS for video, there are tons of applications where this is necessary.

out of all of the 70-200's, my personal favorite to film with is the 4.0 IS, just because of the size of the lens barrel. It's important to pull accurate focus, and for most of what I do, I can't attach a follow focus to my set up. the 4.0's smaller lens barrel is much easier to pull focus with.

Hmmm....I never realized that. Maybe I will get the canon one day if the focus direction becomes and issue.

skwirnmn wrote in post #15395400
I would strongly recommend not getting this lens for video. While zooming out, intuitively, your subject is moving closer to you, which means you're pulling focus towards you as well. the zoom and focus ring turn in the opposite direction in this regards, which is fine for photo, but terrible for video. sigma makes awesome lenses, but this lens in particular, isn't all that great if you plan on shooting video while pulling focus and zooming.

and everyone stfu about not zooming and pulling focus while shooting, there are plenty of applications where you do this as a camera operator and can't have follow focuses or rigs attached.

the 70-200 2.8 II is an amazing lens in terms of stabilization as well. regardless of what people say about using IS for video, there are tons of applications where this is necessary.

out of all of the 70-200's, my personal favorite to film with is the 4.0 IS, just because of the size of the lens barrel. It's important to pull accurate focus, and for most of what I do, I can't attach a follow focus to my set up. the 4.0's smaller lens barrel is much easier to pull focus with.

akivisuals wrote in post #15394159
I've had the 70-200L in a bunch of flavors. f/4, f/2.8, f/2.8 IS mark I and mark II. The f/2.8 IS mark II is hands down the best zoom lens I've ever owned, and I've owned plenty. It's as sharp as my L primes, the stabilization works amazingly well and the bokeh is just beautiful. In the midst of considering moving to Sony and their Zeiss glass, having to not shoot with the 70-200L IS mkII is keeping me from making any rash decisions. That zoom has actually got me back into using a zoom as a primary lens instead of my beloved 85L or 135L! Yes, it's THAT good.

+1

I shot a wedding on a beach with the 70-200L II and the IS is outstanding, even with a 2x TC on from time to time. Those 400mm distant shots of the couple walking along the beach look killer. You can even shoot hand held ! I can shoot the moon perfectly well handheld, and with a 2x on - the IS is that good. And the DOF is nice, wide open.

Beware, you will need quality ND filters shooting outdoors wide open. I recommend the Tiffen IR NDs.

I also shoot water sports from the bank of the river (with tripod) and the 70-200L II focus ring and the zoom ring both the turn the same way - ie, when the action is coming towards you, and zooming wider, the focus is turned the same direction, so it is an easy one handed two finger operation, one on the zoom, one on the focus.

I cut a 1" hole in the bottom of the lens hood (ouch) to get my finger on a polarizing filter. I have only used rubber hoods for 2yrs now - much better than the hard plastic ones.

IS is important feature. People gets older and what if you can't get sharp images coz your hands shaking.

I have 70-200mm f/4 IS and I don't need anything else. I took pictures for clients and their eyes can't see any difference between the result of these lenses. So for me, why bother to upgrade?