What lenses do you shoot with?

As I have moved to my second season shooting a particular H.S football
team, I have not seen many primes used. By my estimation the various photogs
that show up are using Nikon gear or Sigma zooms. These are all night games with
different lighting. Presently, I use a 300/7D and a 70-200(I vary bringing the second body). Any thoughts on the why no primes and what do you use?

If I had access to the Nikon 200-400, I wouldn't use a prime either.

The Sigma 120-300 is also a great reason not to spend on a prime.

As far as who uses what, what I see it depends on who. All of the pro's (by that, the daily new shooters, working full time) will come with primes and 1.4 Tubes, and a 70-200, at the least. The Pro-Am guys will typically just show up with the 70-200 or lesser. At least in my area. Although the telephoto zooms are nice, you can't beat the primes on IQ and AF. They'll win hands down every time.

What I bring is a 400mm 2.8, the sigma 120-300 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 and a couple of 1.4 tubes.

For HS Football I am almost always using a 300mm 2.8 + 1.4TC. Myself personally I like shooting with primes over zooms, but most primes do cost the $$$ and maybe this is why you see less of them. I know in my area I don't see a lot of primes on the field until playoffs.

I do bring the 70-200mm 2.8 and a 24-70mm 2.8 or 24-105mm 4, as I like to mix it up and get different shots from time to time.

I use 300L and 135L. Usually 300 on 7d and 135 on 1dii.

70-200 2.8L but would love to be able to use 300/400 2.8L

I have been using a Sigma 70-200 2.8 recently, on my 7D. And yes, it is a little soft at 2.8 under the lights.

Okay I am a dope here: what do you mean when you refer to "primes"?

JPMosu wrote in post #13321167
Okay I am a dope here: what do you mean when you refer to "primes"?

A prime lens has a fixed focal length.

I primarily shoot a 300L 2.8, but sometimes shoot the 70-200L 2.8 behind the endzone when the offense is inside the 5.

300mm is all day. Sometimes a 1.4 with it.

I shoot for a minor league football team, and do a lot of walking up and down the sidelines and sometimes from just outside the endzone so I can look downfield when the players are at the line and I want to get faces.

I almost exclusively use my 70-200 f/2.8. I have a prime, but I don't use it at games unless there's going to be a team photo, and then I'd be more likely to use my wide angle zoom. I'd prefer to have a 24-70 f/2.8, but I just have a kit wide angle, which is adequate.

If I do use two cameras, I have a wide angle on one and the longer lens on the other, but only use the wide angle for sideline shots of the players when they're waiting to go onto the field.
In most cases, shots of the game itself are done with the long lens (the 70-200mm).

and if I were shooting from the stands, I'd be using my 70-300mm, although the aperture isn't as nice as the f/2.8, so I might have a second body with that, just in case.

I might also mention that with the lighting changing (and it does for me too), I find myself taking a reference shot for white balance about every 10 or 15 minutes if I can. This allows me to keep better colors throughout the game.
It seems to work.
I have an Expocard (an older version of an Expodisc) and unfocus and shoot through it at a prime light source at the game). I use that reference as my custom white balance, and my colors seem a lot better than just relying on auto white balance. It's just that I have to do that several times until the sun finally goes down and I'm just using the field lights. Then I can just use the white balance I get from them and don't have to redo my white balance anymore for the evening.