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

[Derrel]

The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?

 

[fjrabon]

The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?

I took that to be what the 'ii' was indicating.

 

[BillM]

I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football.

 

[Overread14 2]

The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?

Aye the new one - which from what I've seen is a fantastic lens. The issue wasn't really with sharpness nor clarity its the aperture loss for night-sports. It's an improved lens, but ist still not an f2.8.

I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football

Aye like I said its not slow - its just not "as" fast as the lens the OP is used to using

 

[fjrabon]

I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football.

It's not slow by any means. I am saying though that if you're used to focusing with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L, you will absolutely notice a difference in focusing speed. Whether the difference between the Canon and the Sigma's focusing speed matters to you or not is probably mostly a function of how accustomed you are to the way the Canon focuses. If youve never used the Canon, I can't see it being an issue, if you've gotten used to the luxury of how fast the Canon focuses, you may find it irksome taking a "step down" in focusing speed.

 

[BillM]

Well I'll leave you Canon folk to discuss.

 

[gsgary]

The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better

 

[beagle100]

The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better

LOL !

the "old dog" 100-400 V1 on a 60D

 

[gsgary]

The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better

LOL !

the "old dog" 100-400 V1 on a 60D

One lucky shot but look how clear the background is, its ok for the odd game

 

[beagle100]

The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better

LOL !

the "old dog" 100-400 V1 on a 60D

One lucky shot but look how clear the background is, its ok for the odd game

LOL !

I get hundreds of those "lucky" shots with the 100-400 in a game - lacrosse, soccer, etc,

 

[gsgary]

The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better

LOL !

the "old dog" 100-400 V1 on a 60D

One lucky shot but look how clear the background is, its ok for the odd game

LOL !

I get hundreds of those "lucky" shots with the 100-400 in a game - lacrosse, soccer, etc,

With background so clear I wouldn't want them but I'm comparing them to what I used to get with my 300f2.8L

 

[Overread14 2]

The biggest problem the 100-400mm has for sports is that its aperture range is restrictive. It's fine in good light, but if you want to do evening, night or just really dull weather sports then you really start wanting that f2.8 aperture. It makes the difference of two whole stops at the 400mm end and that is make or break sometimes in sports - plus anything that lets you keep your ISO that bit lower is a good thing instead of always pushing the limits of the camera.

 

[Mashburn]

The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?

hahahaha yes I was. the version one has to many issues. and that water gun pump action, seriously? good ridance that was a horrible idea. (side note: it is not something you want to have around when taking pictures of the womens football lingire league.)

 

[Mashburn]

The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?

Aye the new one - which from what I've seen is a fantastic lens. The issue wasn't really with sharpness nor clarity its the aperture loss for night-sports. It's an improved lens, but ist still not an f2.8.

I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football

Aye like I said its not slow - its just not "as" fast as the lens the OP is used to using

I shot the sigma 150-600 on a nikon. and of course we know canon is the better one for sports and AI servo. so anyhow, I did love it "then". but then when I finally got to use the 70-200 canon I loved it more. when a player is coming at you in a open field, both are good. but when a line opens a hole and a running back comes through showing his head, the 70-200 will 49 out of 50 times hit it; while the sigma will miss it until his whole body is in the hole a lot.

my post is not knocking down the sigma. just saying the edge goes to 70-200 canon.

 

[Mashburn]

UPDATE: I purchased the Canon 7D mk ii. I went yesterday to try it out and really wanted to see how the ISO was. When I shot in fairly good lighting (cloudy and dim lighting, but still good) I was blown away at how well it did. I amped it to 3200, could not see noise. then to 6400 (you would think to see something at least).... nope. even when I zoomed in on the picture I could see it some, but lightroom would clear it real fast without losing deatil.

in low light the ISO still performs really really good. at 3200 it looks really clean and no noise. at 6400 you can see it very very very mildly. when zoomed in to 1:1 you can see it mildly but it can be clean easy. but here is the crazy thing............. I amped it up to 16000 (yes sixteen thousand) and there is noise of course but it is not that bad. something that can be cleaned up and lose a little bit of detail.


now here is my down side to all canon gear (and this could be user error). but there is a lot of times when my images are not that beautiful tack sharp. like when you zoom in and can see the detail in someones chin hair for a 13 year old kid. and that is on all the lenses. the 70-200 is still a 95% awesome, but it just rarely gives me that OMG 100% awesome. and it does this on the 7D mk ii. so do you think that it is me? should I try to mess with adjucting the lens in manual settings?