Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
Just curious, how necessary is Image Stabilization in a lense (16-35mm) when filming skiing with a glide cam?
I am debating the pros and cons of Canon's 16-35 f/4 IS, and the 16-35 f/2.8 II (non-IS), and I need some help.
I'm a huge fan of the 2.8 maximum aperture for low light situations, but if Image Stabilization is a big concern when it comes to video, I might have to go with the f/4.
Any first-hand experience or opinions are greatly appreciated!
eheathIS is nearly worthless for video, its a photo feature, especially with a lens that wide. Go Non-IS.
100 percent disagree. Ever shoot with the 70-200 shoulder mounted with IS turned off compared to on? IS is huge for anything run and gun, handheld shots especially. It's not super necessary for anything with a monopod/tripod, but for basically anything else I think it can make or break a shot. There are some shots handheld that just wouldn't be useable without the IS.
That said, two of my favorite Canon lenses are the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 IS II
SourSteezle100 percent disagree. Ever shoot with the 70-200 shoulder mounted with IS turned off compared to on? IS is huge for anything run and gun, handheld shots especially. It's not super necessary for anything with a monopod/tripod, but for basically anything else I think it can make or break a shot. There are some shots handheld that just wouldn't be useable without the IS.That said, two of my favorite Canon lenses are the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 IS II
I dunno why you'd shoot a 70-200 on your shoulder minus experimenting...
That being said, IS on a wide lens is worthless. The reason I say its worthless is because at any focal length IS matters, you're on a tripod 90% of the time.
eheathI dunno why you'd shoot a 70-200 on your shoulder minus experimenting...That being said, IS on a wide lens is worthless. The reason I say its worthless is because at any focal length IS matters, you're on a tripod 90% of the time.
haha damn man. If you shoot nothing but studio work I'm sorry for you. About 50 percent of my work is shoulder mount or handheld, and IS most certainty makes a difference, you're wrong if you think otherwise. I shoot shoulder mount interviews with the 70-200 all the time, if you don't do that you're missing out
SourSteezlehaha damn man. If you shoot nothing but studio work I'm sorry for you. About 50 percent of my work is shoulder mount or handheld, and IS most certainty makes a difference, you're wrong if you think otherwise. I shoot shoulder mount interviews with the 70-200 all the time, if you don't do that you're missing out
I usually use a 24-70 on a shoulder which does have IS but again, we're not talking about our professional careers, this is some kid buying a lens for his glide cam. In this situation, where hes thinking about buying a 16-35mm he does not need IS, IMO.
I think we can also agree these lenses were made for photo cameras, the IS is a photo function, yes it works with video but IMO if you're on a budget go NON-IS.
You should have IS off when using a glidecam, so I would say not worth it. I believe IS is most useful for handheld shots at relatively low shutter speeds. I think I saw an example where a canon lens was tested, and they were able to get shots at 1/15 at 70mm, but only of a static subject (moving one will blur due to shutter, not a matter of IS). I haven't tried it out for video, but I know you don't use it with a glidecam.
SourSteezle100 percent disagree. Ever shoot with the 70-200 shoulder mounted with IS turned off compared to on? IS is huge for anything run and gun, handheld shots especially. It's not super necessary for anything with a monopod/tripod, but for basically anything else I think it can make or break a shot. There are some shots handheld that just wouldn't be useable without the IS.That said, two of my favorite Canon lenses are the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 IS II
Interesting.
The IS can make or a break a shot in terms of the IS distorting the shot as well.
Do any true cinema lenses have IS? I mean, even a $50k+ Fujinon Servo lens made for 'run and gun' high quality doc shooting doesn't have IS. Why? Because IS often distorts an image when used for motion. Stabilization should be found from your equipment, not optically from your lens.
As eheath said, IS is a function created for photography, not motion.
And that was pretty a pretty condescending thing to say below 'I feel sorry for you...' Also, eheath is missing out from shooting shoulder mounted interviews with the 70-200? Dang, you're right...he is missing out, sounds like a blast.
So, OP, to answer your question, go with non-IS. Yes, the 70-200 II is a fantastic lens in terms of sharpness and look, but you do not NEED IS for motion, especially on a glidecam.
goodiepocketInteresting.The IS can make or a break a shot in terms of the IS distorting the shot as well.
Do any true cinema lenses have IS? I mean, even a $50k+ Fujinon Servo lens made for 'run and gun' high quality doc shooting doesn't have IS. Why? Because IS often distorts an image when used for motion. Stabilization should be found from your equipment, not optically from your lens.
As eheath said, IS is a function created for photography, not motion.
And that was pretty a pretty condescending thing to say below 'I feel sorry for you...' Also, eheath is missing out from shooting shoulder mounted interviews with the 70-200? Dang, you're right...he is missing out, sounds like a blast.
So, OP, to answer your question, go with non-IS. Yes, the 70-200 II is a fantastic lens in terms of sharpness and look, but you do not NEED IS for motion, especially on a glidecam.
There are plenty of IS lenses that don't get distorted, never had any issues with my 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and my 100mm macro IS which has the insanely good IS for video
goodiepocketAnd that was pretty a pretty condescending thing to say below 'I feel sorry for you...' Also, eheath is missing out from shooting shoulder mounted interviews with the 70-200? Dang, you're right...he is missing out, sounds like a blast.
Eheath clearly has no experience using IS lenses for video or he would have noticed a difference, it's not hard to tell that it helps alot. So no, I don't think he should discourage people from buying some of my favorite lenses because they're IS.
Also, I personally have a good time shooting shoulder mount with my 70-200, I'm surprised you don't.
SourSteezleEheath clearly has no experience using IS lenses for video or he would have noticed a difference, it's not hard to tell that it helps alot. So no, I don't think he should discourage people from buying some of my favorite lenses because they're IS.Also, I personally have a good time shooting shoulder mount with my 70-200, I'm surprised you don't.
Why do you choose to shoot so tight on your shoulder? Realistically you're filming doc style interviews whatever right? You can do that with a 24mm.
SourSteezleThere are plenty of IS lenses that don't get distorted, never had any issues with my 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and my 100mm macro IS which has the insanely good IS for video
anddd what about all the cinema lenses? none of those have autofocus or IS.... you choosing based on IS or not is similar to someone going oh let's compare the AF speeds of cameras to decide which one we want to get for video...
SourSteezleEheath clearly has no experience using IS lenses for video or he would have noticed a difference, it's not hard to tell that it helps alot. So no, I don't think he should discourage people from buying some of my favorite lenses because they're IS.Also, I personally have a good time shooting shoulder mount with my 70-200, I'm surprised you don't.
First, to address the comment above-
You cannot say there are plenty of IS lenses that DONT get distorted. IS is essentially shifting light rays as they enter your lens. You're adding one more variable to effect how that light hits your sensor. I am not saying it happens all the time, however, it can be a problem and when it does become an issue on THE shot you need, you'll be wishing you weren't using it.
For example, this is especially true when your camera is on a tripod with IS on and you are panning, where IS can actually increase blurring. Using IS on a tripod also runs the risk of feedback loop. This is where the lens senses it's own vibration from IS and and tries to correct it, moving the element around even though the camera is still, which creates motion in your objects that aren't there.
Also, simply put, IS decreases sharpness of a lens. IS is 'using one motion along one axis to counter motion on the opposite axis, which creates varying degrees of degradation.'
I am not saying IS doesn't help, especially for handheld work, by all means get an IS lens if you're doing a lot of handheld work. However, to preach that it is perfect and has no effect on image quality is very wrong information to give to somebody. You should know how the technology works so you know when it's working against you as well.
In addition, I don't have fun shooting shoulder mount with my 70-200 II because I don't own or often work with any lenses that have IS.
goodiepocketFirst, to address the comment above-You cannot say there are plenty of IS lenses that DONT get distorted. IS is essentially shifting light rays as they enter your lens. You're adding one more variable to effect how that light hits your sensor. I am not saying it happens all the time, however, it can be a problem and when it does become an issue on THE shot you need, you'll be wishing you weren't using it.
I listed three lenses that I use almost daily and have never had any distortion on any of them nor have I noticed any less sharpness while using IS.
To the person talking about Cinema lenses, I'm guessing if you're using cinema lenses you're going to have a big enough rig that you don't need IS. In most cases IS isn't needed, but in cases such as Wedding videography where you can't have a large rig, to me personally it's a life saver, as it pays for my bills and every IS lens I've bought has paid itself off within a week.
To eheath, you do realize that DOF is very much dependent on your focal length, right? You realize it's impossible to get the same shot at 70 @ 2.8, as it is with a 35mm or 50mm prime?
That said, I've said everything I want to say and don't feel like arguing with people that clearly have a different shooting style. To OP, don't take anyone too seriously on here because we all have different styles. But with the lenses I mentioned IS does work wonders, and if you're into run and gun video work I would strongly suggest those lenses for you.
SourSteezleTo eheath, you do realize that DOF is very much dependent on your focal length, right? You realize it's impossible to get the same shot at 70 @ 2.8, as it is with a 35mm or 50mm prime?That said, I've said everything I want to say and don't feel like arguing with people that clearly have a different shooting style. To OP, don't take anyone too seriously on here because we all have different styles. But with the lenses I mentioned IS does work wonders, and if you're into run and gun video work I would strongly suggest those lenses for you.
Please drop the condescending bullshit, you know I know these things, save your breath. My point was you could shoot a 50mm at 1.4 or even a 35mm at 1.4 on a crop camera and get desirable DOF.
Anyways, I know what youre saying, 70+ DOF looks different, I still don't understand why you'd use a shoulder rig over a tripod, but i digress.
The whole point I'm trying to make is you dont need an expensive lens to create a great image. I use a $50 70-210 f4 nikon lens as my long lens, it looks fucking great. Sure ive got a nice tripod I put it on which makes a huge difference, but I'm just saying. If some kid asks me what canon 70-200 ill always recommend the f4 non-is because #1 if you're asking you probably can afford the 2.8 IS version and if you could youd just buy it and #2 i want to reenforce that using IS on a tripod won't help you and realistically you should only be using a 70-200 on a tripod especially if you have to ask which lens to get. Thats my $.02.
SourSteezleEheath clearly has no experience using IS lenses for video or he would have noticed a difference, it's not hard to tell that it helps alot. So no, I don't think he should discourage people from buying some of my favorite lenses because they're IS.
SourSteezlePerfect example of eheath spreading misinformation to the youngins. Today is a sad day
Your ignorance is astonishing, I'm truly blow away by how stupid you sound trying to prove eheath wrong. Also, I've never heard anyone speak so much on Evan's behalf, besides Evan himself... What misinformation has Evan provided? He, like yourself, expressed his personal opinion as to why he doesn't think IS is necessary for ski videos. He makes rational arguments and you have fired back with ad hominems, anecdotal fallacies and appeals to the stone. Bravo, you debate like a middle-schooler.
Implying that IS doesn't actually cause distortion because YOU'VE never experienced distortion on 3 lenses is downright retarded. George has explained (Very well, I might add) that based off the laws of optics, there WILL be distortion and effects on an image based off an IS element. Always. Is it noticeable? Sometimes not, especially when you don't look for it. However, it does happen and I've found IS to cause more headaches than not. Like he said, your stabilization should come from your tripod, shoulder mount, glidecam, and operation skills over your lens, ESPECIALLY if you plan to turn the IS on while using one of these devices. The IS will attempt to counter-act the intended motion and will likely end up doing more harm than good.
Also, the DOF thing you mention with a 70mm @2.8 vs a 50 or 35 is not technically "Depth of Field". It's perspective distortion, or "tele-compression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29
If you continue to mouth off and post bullshit, it will be myself, not Evan, who gives you a timeout. And I HIGHLY recommend you brush up on your debating skills, because you really suck at this. Don't use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
1337Your ignorance is astonishing, I'm truly blow away by how stupid you sound trying to prove eheath wrong. Also, I've never heard anyone speak so much on Evan's behalf, besides Evan himself... What misinformation has Evan provided? He, like yourself, expressed his personal opinion as to why he doesn't think IS is necessary for ski videos. He makes rational arguments and you have fired back with ad hominems, anecdotal fallacies and appeals to the stone. Bravo, you debate like a middle-schooler.Implying that IS doesn't actually cause distortion because YOU'VE never experienced distortion on 3 lenses is downright retarded. George has explained (Very well, I might add) that based off the laws of optics, there WILL be distortion and effects on an image based off an IS element. Always. Is it noticeable? Sometimes not, especially when you don't look for it. However, it does happen and I've found IS to cause more headaches than not. Like he said, your stabilization should come from your tripod, shoulder mount, glidecam, and operation skills over your lens, ESPECIALLY if you plan to turn the IS on while using one of these devices. The IS will attempt to counter-act the intended motion and will likely end up doing more harm than good.
Also, the DOF thing you mention with a 70mm @2.8 vs a 50 or 35 is not technically "Depth of Field". It's perspective distortion, or "tele-compression" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29
If you continue to mouth off and post bullshit, it will be myself, not Evan, who gives you a timeout. And I HIGHLY recommend you brush up on your debating skills, because you really suck at this. Don't use these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I recommend everyone of you go out and shoot handheld with the 17-55 2.8 with IS on and then try and 'debate' it doesn't help, and there is never any distortion on this lens. I'm out, NS is soft
SourSteezleI recommend everyone of you go out and shoot handheld with the 17-55 2.8 with IS on and then try and 'debate' it doesn't help, and there is never any distortion on this lens. I'm out, NS is soft
Do you read? It sounds like you just skim and then re-state your invalid argument, I'm not saying you have all bad points in fact you have a decent one or two you just presented them poorly. You've lost. It's that simple Evan gave everyone his opinion you gave yours. As stated above you're arguing like a middle schooler who's too stubborn to walk away from the fight. So when you say "I'm out, NS is soft." What we really know it means is as soon as you work up the balls to come back and say anything you will.
To the point of the thread I'd choose the 2.8, and that choice has nothing to do with IS or not. It's just a better lens all around.
SourSteezleI recommend everyone of you go out and shoot handheld with the 17-55 2.8 with IS on and then try and 'debate' it doesn't help, and there is never any distortion on this lens. I'm out, NS is soft
lol you completely ignored my last comment, youre fucking soft dude.
We simply recommended a ski filmer who should be using stabilization (not shooting 70-200 hand held) some basic advice to save money, thats all. if you're using a tripod, you don't need IS. If you're using a glidecam, you don't need IS. Your corporate filming gigs (which for some reason includes a ton of hand held?) are not the same as the average NSer. this forums isnt for you to come and talk big game about how dope you are, its a place to give advice and to tell me im giving bad advice is ridiculous because neither of us are presenting facts, we are talking about something that is subjective. Of course we will disagree about styles, thats fine, but were not argung what 2+2 is, its an opinion about a technique for filming.
You can keep arguing about how you're "right" or whatever but whats the fucking point dude? Why cant you accept an opinion thats not yours?
eheathlol you completely ignored my last comment, youre fucking soft dude.We simply recommended a ski filmer who should be using stabilization (not shooting 70-200 hand held) some basic advice to save money, thats all. if you're using a tripod, you don't need IS. If you're using a glidecam, you don't need IS. Your corporate filming gigs (which for some reason includes a ton of hand held?) are not the same as the average NSer. this forums isnt for you to come and talk big game about how dope you are, its a place to give advice and to tell me im giving bad advice is ridiculous because neither of us are presenting facts, we are talking about something that is subjective. Of course we will disagree about styles, thats fine, but were not argung what 2+2 is, its an opinion about a technique for filming.
You can keep arguing about how you're "right" or whatever but whats the fucking point dude? Why cant you accept an opinion thats not yours?
I disagree with you that it's subjective. From my experience, it is a FACT that IS works for video. You can disagree with me but it won't change the facts.
SourSteezleI disagree with you that it's subjective. From my experience, it is a FACT that IS works for video. You can disagree with me but it won't change the facts.
I'm sorry Steezle, but did you read anything I posted earlier? Do you just not believe in science or....?
You cannot tell me that you believe it is FACT that your $800 photography lens with IS does not distort the image in any way. I don't think we have ever said that IS doesn't work for video have we? We have only made the point that IS wasn't created for video and because of this, there are certain FACTS (proven by science not personal opinion) to be aware of and work with so they don't work against you. Can IS be useful? Absolutely. Is it perfect? No.
Also, to those above, I completely agree, the 70-200 II is a really beautiful lens.
Have fun with that 17-55, feel free to share some of your footage with us so we can see how well it works. I am sure the OP would love to see IS in action. ^_^
SourSteezleJust realized I'm trying to debate with two 'basement dwellers', I ain't got time for that. Gotta get ready for a shoot, I'm bringing the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 IS, perfect setup, I'm stoked.
I love when people try to use the 'basement dweller' as an insult, I created that name haha
Im glad you're stoked on your setup, the best thing for shooting isn't the 'best' equipment its the the equipment you're most comfortable with. You can keep trying to insult me or be negative if you want that's your choice.
SourSteezlebecause I think IS works for video? Yeah man, I'm a total asshole. Care to share your thoughts on IS lenses from your experiences?
because you're not addressing anything that is of importance (hell did you even read goodiepocket's posts?)
And if all of your responses are those of insults, rather than an actual responses. The ignorance is astounding. And for the record, a little shake is normal (wobbly distortion is not). and as far as i'm concerned, no one's made an IS lens that'll cause the gimbals to go extinct (hence, if he's using a fuckin glidecam LIKE IT ASKS IN THE ORIGINAL POST, why the hell does he need IS? if the gimbal's balanced properly, there is really zero need for IS, so every argument you've made in this thread is moot point (although it was already due to your constant deflection of the things brought up as counterarguements.)
SourSteezlebecause I think IS works for video? Yeah man, I'm a total asshole. Care to share your thoughts on IS lenses from your experiences?
Also quick question.
is the shot from 0:23 filmed with these said IS lenses or did you just use warp stabilizer, cause there's some jello distortion going on there, which according to you never happens with IS lenses!
SourSteezlebecause I think IS works for video? Yeah man, I'm a total asshole. Care to share your thoughts on IS lenses from your experiences?
No dude, it's not about what your opinion is. It's about how you deliver it. Your hostility is unprovoked and you're attacking the people who disagree with you, which isn't cool.
I always prefer to use IS when I'm shooting 70-200 with a tripod, though that might be because I've got a pretty basic tripod. Any lens besides tele and I think it's pointless.
nutz.Also quick question.is the shot from 0:23 filmed with these said IS lenses or did you just use warp stabilizer, cause there's some jello distortion going on there, which according to you never happens with IS lenses!
... That's for giving my buddy some views. Soursteezle is much bigger than just me , get educated
SourSteezle... That's for giving my buddy some views. Soursteezle is much bigger than just me , get educated
SourSteezle... That's for giving my buddy some views. Soursteezle is much bigger than just me , get educated
How big is 'Soursteezle'? I am honestly curious...
Judging by how I cannot find anything new from you since 2013 and no website...whoever is your head of marketing should probably start looking for a new job.
goodiepocketHow big is 'Soursteezle'? I am honestly curious...Judging by how I cannot find anything new from you since 2013 and no website...whoever is your head of marketing should probably start looking for a new job.
It's a college crew that came up with a production company, kind of like a less successful 4bi9 in Colorado. We used to have a premiere every year with MSP. Since then people have moved away/graduated/etc, but you'll still sporadically see sour steezle stickers if you're in or around southwest Colorado. .Aaron Blunck who competed at Sochi used to ride with the sour steezle crew, as well as a bunch of people who compete in the FWT. There hasn't been much new content lately but it's far from dead
CrutchKillerSelling my tripod and glidecam to pick up some new lenses with IS that I can shoot on my shoulder rig. Thanks for the info everyone!Also why do people still even argue with soursteeezlee? he's a douchebag every time he posts
When did I say that having a tripod and glidecam shouldn't come first? I stated that when in run and gun situations IS definitely works and has gave me shots that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to get. Am I a douchebag because I'm right...or are you a douchebag for putting words in my mouth?
SourSteezleAm I a douchebag because I'm right...or are you a douchebag for putting words in my mouth?
Nah you're just a douche bag. You try as hard as you can to ignore any sort of real argument and attack whoever in a personal matter (you love to pick on me ;))
You're not right either though, because its a subjective matter, you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions and facts. If you like utilizing the IS function on a photo lens and spending 2x more, go for it, rock it.
eheathNah you're just a douche bag. You try as hard as you can to ignore any sort of real argument and attack whoever in a personal matter (you love to pick on me ;))You're not right either though, because its a subjective matter, you don't seem to understand the difference between opinions and facts. If you like utilizing the IS function on a photo lens and spending 2x more, go for it, rock it.
well I actually do a lot of photography for work so it's nice for that, but there's really not a better walk around lens for crop sensors in general. The 24-70 is a great range, but I prefer the 17-55 IS anyday.
Also, to everyone calling me a douchebag, it might seem that way on the internet, but if you look deep enough into my post you might actually learn something. I'm prob. one of the easiest people to get along with, and anyone that's met me in real life would tell you the same thing.
Gotta go shoot a wedding. C100 w/ 17-55 2.8 IS + 7D mk II w/ Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS ii = SEX
SourSteezlewell I actually do a lot of photography for work so it's nice for that, but there's really not a better walk around lens for crop sensors in general. The 24-70 is a great range, but I prefer the 17-55 IS anyday.Also, to everyone calling me a douchebag, it might seem that way on the internet, but if you look deep enough into my post you might actually learn something. I'm prob. one of the easiest people to get along with, and anyone that's met me in real life would tell you the same thing.
Gotta go shoot a wedding. C100 w/ 17-55 2.8 IS + 7D mk II w/ Sigma 18-35 1.8 and Canon 70-200 2.8 IS ii = SEX
I only call you a douche bag because of how pretentious you are. Like your last statement, just bragging dude we don't care, at all. There are people on here that use plenty of cool equipment and we all do freelance work too you're not the only one.
eheathI only call you a douche bag because of how pretentious you are. Like your last statement, just bragging dude we don't care, at all. There are people on here that use plenty of cool equipment and we all do freelance work too you're not the only one.
I would never hire you as a second shooter, regardless of your gear our style's don't match up one bit
SourSteezleI would never hire you as a second shooter, regardless of your gear our style's don't match up one bit
LOL like I would ever work for you, who wants some dick bag wannabe dude telling them what to do? Also I dont think you need a second shooter for filming corporate interviews in an office building in denver.
SourSteezleIt's a college crew that came up with a production company, kind of like a less successful 4bi9 in Colorado. We used to have a premiere every year with MSP. Since then people have moved away/graduated/etc, but you'll still sporadically see sour steezle stickers if you're in or around southwest Colorado. .Aaron Blunck who competed at Sochi used to ride with the sour steezle crew, as well as a bunch of people who compete in the FWT. There hasn't been much new content lately but it's far from dead
Also this is hilarious you compared soursteelze to 4bi9... i thought soursteezle was just your name lol