70-200 2.8 vs 4IS for soccer

Agustin.Reyes wrote in post #17086849
Is the Canon 1D MK III a +1 in everything from the 1D MKII N? (for sports)

The 1DmkIIn is a great sports body. It doesn't fail to get the job done. But like all technology that has been superceded, it can't keep up with the newer technology when that newer technology has been designed to surpass it (unless you never utilize it in a situation where the newer technology has the advantage).

To answer your question regarding the mkIII being +1 in everything from the mkIIn; That would be a solid YES!.

Keeping the same crop factor (APS-H sensor) you jump from 8 to 10 megapixels giving you a bit more cropping range. Not essential, but usually beneficial.

Battery technology changed from NiMH to Li-ion. I've been able to take over 11k images on a single charge. Average on the mkIV is 6000. Average on the mkIII over time has been less than 11k per charge.

Menus and Menu selections: The mkIII has many more options in its menus and does not require you to press two buttons at a time to make changes to major settings. The 1D, 1Ds, 1DII, 1DIIn and 1DsII share this two button to change settings requirement.

I still use my mkIII right alongside my mkIV's and reserve the 1DmkIIN for outdoor daytime events. I would shoot with it at night under the lights if I had to, but am thankful I don't have to.

Your highest ISO on the MK III is 6400 and only available if you've set C.fn I-3 to allow it.

If you pick up a 1DmkIII you'll definitely enjoy it.

Get the 70-200 2.8. There is no substitute for 2.8. It is plenty sharp and the go-to lens of many pros.

The mkII's AF was a bit more accurate IMO, but in every other department, the MkIII is significantly better.

I have recently been signed up to shoot top flight soccer (football) in Scotland. One of the first questions I got asked was whether I was going to swap out my f/4 IS for a 2.8 and I asked why. The response was that the f/4 IS doesn't let enough light in for the coming darker months even during the day and that the AF sensor struggles with AF tracking at f/4 losing the vital extra sensitive AF points.

Apparently image sales come easier if you are able to separate your players from the background too. I only just got my f/4 about two weeks ago and already I'm looking to punt it.

Paulstw wrote in post #17120292
I have recently been signed up to shoot top flight soccer (football) in Scotland. One of the first questions I got asked was whether I was going to swap out my f/4 IS for a 2.8 and I asked why. The response was that the f/4 IS doesn't let enough light in for the coming darker months even during the day and that the AF sensor struggles with AF tracking at f/4 losing the vital extra sensitive AF points.

Apparently image sales come easier if you are able to separate your players from the background too. I only just got my f/4 about two weeks ago and already I'm looking to punt it.

It is always that way if you don't get what you need right away. I bought my 17-40 as my first L lens and then for tele, I got the 70-200 f4, which I loved and it wasn't that much money. But right after I got both those lenses, I realized that I needed the 2.8 IS bad for pro work. I went straight to the 70-200 2.8 IS for events because the f4 just can't keep up with the lighting. Some chapels I shoot at, flash is not allowed at all.

Save and get what you need. Makes life a lot easier.

SuzyView wrote in post #17121150
It is always that way if you don't get what you need right away. I bought my 17-40 as my first L lens and then for tele, I got the 70-200 f4, which I loved and it wasn't that much money. But right after I got both those lenses, I realized that I needed the 2.8 IS bad for pro work. I went straight to the 70-200 2.8 IS for events because the f4 just can't keep up with the lighting. Some chapels I shoot at, flash is not allowed at all.

Save and get what you need. Makes life a lot easier.

Just sucks when you're talking about the price of eight or nine f/4 lenses. I can get budget for huge purchases in my family, but it's pretty tough to make a case for a purchase that would otherwise greatly boost our college savings.

Ain't that the truth? I had to stop buying cameras and glass lately that really didn't make any sense if I'm not shooting pro all the time. I was going to sell everything and get the 5DIII and the 24-70 II, but in truth, my gear is pretty decent already, and I've got 2 sons getting ready for college.

I was asked recently to shoot professional Football (soccer) in Scotland. A chance of a lifetime. It was alos mentioned to me that I'd likely need a 400 2.8 and have to switch out all my stuff for 2.8 lenses and get another body.

The saying that you have to speculate to accumulate is certainly prevalent in photography. All we ever do is buy high end gear to get better shots at bigger jobs, and then once in the job, you're expected to sell your images for buttons cause all you did was click a button lol

Yes, that is so true. But I have friends who see me with all my stuff, and they know the cost, and they buy the consumer level and think they should be able to get almost as good coverage of their daughter's gymnastics as I get. It's all about the skill and the gear. I guess if you get 1/20 good shots versus my 1/3, and you're happy with it, more power to you. I can't afford to miss that often. But it is true that people don't think it's that hard to do what we do.

SuzyView wrote in post #17122388
But it is true that people don't think it's that hard to do what we do.

Yupe, yupe, yupe, until they try.

Paulstw wrote in post #17122226
I was asked recently to shoot professional Football (soccer) in Scotland. A chance of a lifetime. It was alos mentioned to me that I'd likely need a 400 2.8 and have to switch out all my stuff for 2.8 lenses and get another body.

The saying that you have to speculate to accumulate is certainly prevalent in photography. All we ever do is buy high end gear to get better shots at bigger jobs, and then once in the job, you're expected to sell your images for buttons cause all you did was click a button lol

Rent a 400mm. Get some practice before the game with it. Cheaper than buying.

Definitely go for the f/2.8 lens over IS. At 1/500, the minimum shutter speed I would recommend for sports, you should be able to easily handhold a 70-200mm lens without camera shake, making IS redundant. Lens sharpness isn't critical for your purposes, but inadequate shutter speed or missed focus will ruin your photos.

Sibil wrote in post #17124125
Yupe, yupe, yupe, until they try.

I had a swim team mom who didn't sign her kids up for my action shot sessions. Instead, she attended the sessions, watched what I did (lay on the deck and shoot fly and breaststroke coming toward me). So she's laying in another lane with her iPhone taking shots of her kids. After about 5 laps, she borrows a point-and-shoot that her friend had. After another 5 laps of trying, she came over and asked if I could squeeze her kids into the schedule.

"Absolutely! Your daughters are all warmed up and will look strong."

I do appreciate her DIY attitude though. That's how I got started. I discussed with her some more detail of what I was doing, and she asked some equipment questions. Maybe she'll move that direction. The more the merrier.

SuzyView wrote in post #17122388
But it is true that people don't think it's that hard to do what we do.

I summarize this to friends as "The cost of equipment needed to capture a shot increases as the speed of the subject increases and/or lack of light." You could add a comment about zoom in there but most see that as obvious.

70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS is a no-brainer.

OP: your gear list already shows a Tamron 70-200 2.8, is something wrong with that lens?
You state that you are going to shoot night soccer, why? Are you going to make lots of money in this endeavor to pay for an expensive lens?

I have both 70-200 f2.8L IS and 70-200 f4L (non-IS). I use the latter MUCH more, especially for soccer. The f2.8 theoretically focuses better due to more light (even if you're setting it at f4 or above) but its just a lot to tote around.

So many people get the 70-200 f2.8 and simply don't use it that much because it's such a beast.

Since your games are at night though; it's probably worth getting the f2.8.