Advice on upgrade to shoot soccer

Teleconverters are for occasional use (unless you are strapping them on a big white prime lens. If you want 400, get a 400.

werds wrote in post #17598266
If the majority of your shots are outdoors in good light go with the 100-400 IS and a 70D - going used route will save you a pretty penny or three. Might even leave you room in the budget for a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS or Tammy 70-200 2.8 VC to help cover those indoor games.

The 55-250 STM is a magnificent lens and I loved how sharp it was end to end, but as you mentioned that you felt you 70-200 was reach limited the 100-400 would provide the extra reach you desire and at a reasonably good price point used, leaving you enough room to pick up a low light zoom lens.

I do want to point out, once you go for the fast lenses (2.8) with reach, they get heavy VERY fast, and a monopod might be needed to some degree.

I don't mind getting a monopod. I'm starting to think that a 70-200 2.8 IS may be the way to go as an all around lens for indoor and outdoor. That way I can pair the 1.4x or 2x teleconverter with it for soccer games.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17598394
Teleconverters are for occasional use (unless you are strapping them on a big white prime lens. If you want 400, get a 400.

I posted before I saw your message. Point well taken.

Refurb 70D bodies and kits are pretty inexpensive at the moment.

http://shop.usa.canon.​com …e:&maxPrice:&pa​geSize:72&

My 70D was purchased new but I got my 60D from Canon Direct (that was the name Canon was using back then) and it was pristine... only 144 shutter actuations, not a scratch on it. Other than the box, I couldn't tell it from a new camera.

Field sports need something fast and long. I think you got some good advice when someone suggested a 70d + 120-300mm, probably the best bang for your buck for sports.

You mentioned a 7D. I came across this one. Low shutter count. Could be a good deal if you win!
http://www.ebay.com …Accessories-/361321232590

rebelsimon wrote in post #17598921
Field sports need something fast and long. I think you got some good advice when someone suggested a 70d + 120-300mm, probably the best bang for your buck for sports.

There's a guy locally that is selling a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens in like new condition for $1000. He's selling it on a sales forum that has nothing to do with photography so it's just sitting there with no bites. I could offer him $900. Are you saying you think this is a viable way to go?

Sorry, I was referring to one of the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8's. 2 full stops faster will make quite the difference.

with the 70D and the 70-300L you would be able to cover most of a soccer field and get good photos for day (not heavy overcast) games

with 70D and 120-300 assuming the focusing is good (i have had bad luck with sigma but presumably with the sport versions you can tweak focus with the dock) you can take pictures essentially for any day games (evening would still be tough in my opinion)

For night games…the lighting at kids games is terrible…I have needed full frame and 2.8…and then ISO can sometimes be 3200 or even higher

Luxx wrote in post #17599529
with the 70D and the 70-300L you would be able to cover most of a soccer field and get good photos for day (not heavy overcast) games

with 70D and 120-300 assuming the focusing is good (i have had bad luck with sigma but presumably with the sport versions you can tweak focus with the dock) you can take pictures essentially for any day games (evening would still be tough in my opinion)

For night games…the lighting at kids games is terrible…I have needed full frame and 2.8…and then ISO can sometimes be 3200 or even higher

If I were to go 7Dmk2 and a non-IS Canon 2.8 70-200L would I improve my chances of shooting indoor games with terrible lighting?

This was shot last night in a middle school gym at a beauty pageant with only two spotlights. Info: 7D Mark II with Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at 200mm using ISO 16000 f/2.8 and 1/250 sec. Edited in LR 5

I think you can get a pretty good photo with the 7DM2 in terrible light. I show this because it is the first time I have ever tried to use an ISO above 6400

Image hosted by forum (733047) © Craign THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

I know you are getting some well meaning suggestions that 300 is long enough. Once you get a 300 you are going to wish you had gome with a 100-400.

As for indoor...I don't like over iso 3200 on 6d and 800 on the 70d but I'm picky with noise. I really think for indoor the 135 is best. I bought mine used for about 750. I have heard 7dii is better with noise than 70d but not as good as 6d. If that is the case then most venues you should be ok with that combo. If not full frame I'd like the extra stop,of 2.0

As for reach...on a full soccer field 400 is better than 300. Often for day games I'll put a 1.4 on my 300 2.8 is. However so many games are overcast or evening or night and I'd be out of luck with my 100-400 (which rocked taking pictures of whales with a 70d last week)

I think you have to prioritize...outdoor or indoor? What else do you want to do?

For me I have a 6d...not a sports body but I've gotten great sport photos with it and I can get great portraits. I put the savings,from 5d mark iii into glass...

With a crop,camera a 85 1.8 might be a good way to get indoor shots
With anything from 100-400 to the new 150-600's you can get daytime outdoor shots. I would argue with a crop camera 300 is long enough. However, evening, night, heavy overcast gets tricky. And you want 2.8.

A 70d with 70-200 will give you pretty good results in all venues but in indoors or night you'll need pretty high ISO and sometimes it won't be great. Outside you'll need to have the action come to you. Also a nice portrait and kids outside playing lens. Plus this combo might be as low as 1500.

Maybe you should rent some equipment over a tournament weekend and see what works for you?

Luxx wrote in post #17600081
A 70d with 70-200 will give you pretty good results in all venues but in indoors or night you'll need pretty high ISO and sometimes it won't be great. Outside you'll need to have the action come to you. Also a nice portrait and kids outside playing lens. Plus this combo might be as low as 1500.

Maybe you should rent some equipment over a tournament weekend and see what works for you?

This may be my best course of action....both the 70D and a non-IS 70-200 2.8.....but also the rental suggestion as well. I'm really intrigued by the 7D2, though. My oldest son plays defense so I could position myself at mid-field for his games and get decent shots with the 200. My youngest son is a keeper so I could take up a position in the defensive 3rd of the field for shots of him at 200. I really want the 10 fps to catch saves that he makes. I'll just keep obsessing over this until I throw my hands up and buy something.

In reality, any of these bodies will be a major step up for me, as a guy who was shooting in Tv mode and high shutter speed with a Rebel XSi.

If you are shooting in daylight, your 70-200 f/4 ought to be fine, just upgrade the body. IMHO a lens like the 100-400 is unlikely to have fast enough autofocus. The reality is that you can't cover the whole pitch, unless you have the 400mm and another body. Which is bucket loads. I have learned to use what I have. I shoot adult soccer and kids. With adults you have to wait for the action to come to you. If you are primarily interested in shooting your kids playing, just work out where they will be mostly on the pitch - defenders, forwards etc - and sit within reach. For goalkeepers you will want to be on the sideline towards the goal. A 70-200 is fine for that. I don't bother with an extender, you lose f/stops, and at f/4 to start with, its not worth it. A body with a good frame rate is useful, but there's usually little no point in shooting bursts of 10 frames. You either get it in the first 2 or 3 or miss it. The advantage of the high frame rate is that tiny fraction of a second that separates a 'good' view from a 'meh' view.