Should I get a 5D mk iii with a 100-400 lens or not? (for football)

[Mashburn]

I currently have a 70D with a 70-200 F/2.8 lens ii. I am able to do ISO 1600-3200, 1/500, f/2.8 at night football games. It has some noise in it. but it is enough to bother me, plus I would like to shot at faster speeds.

I am thinking of buying a full frame within my budget. and the 5D mk iii is the one I am currently looking at. but I know with it being full frame I would be missing out on the 1.6 crop of zooming. So what do you think of pairing it with a canon 100-400mm ii F/4.5-5.3?

- what ISO can you go to before you see noise without cropping on a 5d mk iii?
- with moving up 2 F stops, how bad would that take off on the speed?

And I do not want to get prime lenses for 2 reasons. how much it cost and because I hate being set at a fixed position.

 

[jaomul]

2 f stops slower lens means 2 stops slower speed at same iso. So f2.8 at iso 3200 would need iso 12800 if at f5.6, or iso 6400 at f4

 

[syaudi]

as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.

but a 7D or 7DII might better suit your purposes.

 

[Mashburn]

as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.

but a 7D or 7DII might better suit your purposes.

Yeah that is what I am thinking to just stay with what I have.

 

[Mashburn]

2 f stops slower lens means 2 stops slower speed at same iso. So f2.8 at iso 3200 would need iso 12800 if at f5.6, or iso 6400 at f4

Thank you that was very informative for me. I was wondering what it would be.

So with me shooting. 3200, F2.8 1/500. I would have to shot at 12,800, f5.6, 1/500 just to pull off the same shot. and I lose the zoom from having a crop.

and if I want to take my shutter speed up to 1/1000 from 1/500, I would have to bring the ISO 12,800 to 25,600....... <<<<<------ So now I wonder how high the ISO would go before the noise starts being noticeable on the 5d mark iii.

 

[ronlane]

as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.

but a 7D or 7DII might better suit your purposes.

Yeah that is what I am thinking to just stay with what I have.

While the 7D may have more fps than the 70D, I don't think it would be a better choice. Now the 7D mk II, on the other hand, I think would be a good alternative. I'm still waiting to see how it and the new 100-400mm are going to do for high school football. (I have a friend that has this combination).

 

[Overread]

You could consider a 5DMIII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. That replicates a rough similar range coverage whilst keeping the zoom feature in the lens. So you don't lose on apertures what you gain in ISO. The only downside is that the 120-300mm is a lot heavier so you might want a monopod to go with it to take the strain off your arms a bit.

A 70-200mm f2.8 can be used all day without much trouble - 120-300mm is a lot more strain.

Another option is you could consider a combo - 5DMIII with a 300mm f2.8. You gain in prime goodness, but lose in weight (though lighter than the sigma zoom) and in the lack of zoom.

 

[fjrabon]

having used both of those lenses on a 7D and a 5DII to shoot high school football, I can tell you the 70D and 70-200 f/2.8 will outshoot the 100-400 3.5-5.6 on a 5DIII any day of the week, and it won't even be particularly close. Especially since the whole point of the 100-400 will be so that you can shoot at the tele end, where it's at 5.6.

 

[Mashburn]

as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.

but a 7D or 7DII might better suit your purposes.

Yeah that is what I am thinking to just stay with what I have.

While the 7D may have more fps than the 70D, I don't think it would be a better choice. Now the 7D mk II, on the other hand, I think would be a good alternative. I'm still waiting to see how it and the new 100-400mm are going to do for high school football. (I have a friend that has this combination).

go to 4:20 seconds into the video. this of course is not sports. but you can see at 3200 70D is basically the same for a 7D mk ii at 6400. very very impressed with that. SO I am now thinking of going that route of trying to sell my 70D.

 

[Mashburn]

You could consider a 5DMIII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. That replicates a rough similar range coverage whilst keeping the zoom feature in the lens. So you don't lose on apertures what you gain in ISO. The only downside is that the 120-300mm is a lot heavier so you might want a monopod to go with it to take the strain off your arms a bit.

A 70-200mm f2.8 can be used all day without much trouble - 120-300mm is a lot more strain.

Another option is you could consider a combo - 5DMIII with a 300mm f2.8. You gain in prime goodness, but lose in weight (though lighter than the sigma zoom) and in the lack of zoom.

hmmmm now that is an idea. because I was about to call it a day. and start looking at selling my 70D for a 7D mk ii.

 

[fjrabon]

You could consider a 5DMIII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. That replicates a rough similar range coverage whilst keeping the zoom feature in the lens. So you don't lose on apertures what you gain in ISO. The only downside is that the 120-300mm is a lot heavier so you might want a monopod to go with it to take the strain off your arms a bit.

A 70-200mm f2.8 can be used all day without much trouble - 120-300mm is a lot more strain.

Another option is you could consider a combo - 5DMIII with a 300mm f2.8. You gain in prime goodness, but lose in weight (though lighter than the sigma zoom) and in the lack of zoom.

hmmmm now that is an idea. because I was about to call it a day. and start looking at selling my 70D for a 7D mk ii.

Make sure you try out the 120-300 before buying. Going from a speed demon like the 70-200 L to it will be an adjustment focus speed wise.

 

[Overread]

That's a good point - the 120-300mm f2.8 is not as fast at focusing as the 70-200mm. Now I will say that its by no means slow- its just not as lightning fast - and certainly has the speed for action work. I think you will be hard pressed to the same kind of focal length coverage any other way - the only other way is you could consider a combination - of primes and zooms or just two primes on two bodies.

 

[fjrabon]

That's a good point - the 120-300mm f2.8 is not as fast at focusing as the 70-200mm. Now I will say that its by no means slow- its just not as lightning fast - and certainly has the speed for action work. I think you will be hard pressed to the same kind of focal length coverage any other way - the only other way is you could consider a combination - of primes and zooms or just two primes on two bodies.

Totally agree. Great lens and certainly "fast enough" but some people get addicted to speed man.

 

[beagle100]

yes, for night football games you will need the 70-200 2.8 --- and a full frame certainly helps

 

[fjrabon]

yes, for night football games you will need the 70-200 2.8 --- and a full frame certainly helps

eh, I have mixed feelings when it comes to full frame v APS-C for football with the 70-200 f/2.8 full frame 200mm is kind of short for a lot of football, but otoh, Canon's APS-C cameras are pretty mediocre/bad in low light. When I was doing a ton of football, my go to setup was a 300mm f/2.8 on 5DII and a 70-200 f/2.8 on a 7D. A lot to lug around, but hard to beat that full frame 300mm for football when you had time to pre-frame a shot, while the 70-200 on the 7D was good for quick shooting plays as they happened.