What next - 300 f2.8 or 1DX?

I never said I'm a pro dude. And yeah, there is a difference between 4 and 14 fps.

idkdc wrote in post #17711699
Yup. Seems like you actually shoot sports! Big difference between 6, 8, 10 and 12 fps for this 2-3 shot burst.

Note that I did not say a 6D would be equal to a 5D or 1Dx for sports, I only said I'd be happy with a 6D.
P.S. College sports is what I shoot most frequently. I use a 5D3 and used to use a 1D2.

A lot depends on where you want to get to with your sports photography. Glass will last longer than "disposable" bodies. So if you are in this for the long haul Imwould be tempted to go with the glass.

When I first started out it took me about 5-6 years before I started to get the setup I wanted, the thing I changed most during that time was the glass moving from 75-300 to 100-400 to Sigma 300f2.8 and then finally my 400 f2.8 which I have had almost 10 years.

Upgrading to the 300 will allow you to take your photography up a level, then replace the body when you have out grown the current body. Don't under estimate what you learn technique wise from shooting with a lower spec body, it forces you to develop good technique, timing etc etc. when you then step up to a higher spec body you will be able to get the most out of it.

Zivnuska wrote in post #17708480
Go with the used 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens. It's a can't miss choice. Use it for a few years and sell it for what you paid. It's definitely a huge improvement in reach over 200mm plus the IQ is superb.

^^^^This. The 300mm lens comes in handy in a lot of situations. I'll be taking mine to shoot a breakfast business award ceremony next week.

And/or

FLASH the football game. This would be your cheapest option as your 7D II plus 70-200mm lens already has enough reach if you're patient and wait for the action to come to you.

I shoot for MaxPreps (high school sports) and until the latest generation of camera bodies came out, they would only accept night football games shot with flash. I upgraded to a 1Dx this past year and decided to skip flash this year; however, I'm just not pleased with the images due to the noise and lack of color pop. I'm going to try to find middle ground, which is to use the hypersync feature of the Pocket Wizard FlexTT5s. See:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/12447​14

Mount more than one flash and do it off camera if you can similar to what is shown in this thread

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1422213

There's nothing wrong with getting paid either. You are putting a lot of miles on your camera and equipment upgrades are expensive. If you're apprehensive about doing this, make it a fundraiser for the boosters.

Have you considered the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports? Great performance and flexibility plus cheaper than a Canon 300 2.8 IS if you wanted to get the 1dX as well.

Or if you can make do with the 7D2 and a little bit of cropping from a 200mm what about the Canon 200 F2? Faster lens so better IQ from the 7D2 since you can use a lower ISO

Sigma do some good alternatives but everyone I know including myself have upgraded within 18-24 months of either having the Sigma 300 f2.8 or the 120-300 f2.8.

From personal experience the sharpness of the Sigma is not as good as the Canon equivalent. I also found with the Sigma 300 f2.8 it kinda under exposed by 1/3 to 1/2 stop.

I would take a Canon 300 f2.8 second hand over any Sigma equivalent lens if given the choice.

Overread wrote in post #11059456
I would say either hand onto it or swap it for either a 70-200mm f4 (thus letting you make a bit more money toward the lights you want) or change it for the M2 as you just expressed an interest in it. That however will cut into your lights money that you are trying to raise.
That or try changing it for at least one longer prime - like a 135mm L for example

I would be disinclined to sell it to fund the lights if you are planning/expecting to want/need the M2 since it means you've still got to reach that higher price point to replace the lens and focal range.

Cranberry.
1Dx or 300 f/2.8?........Tough call.
Since I have a 5D Mark III and the original 7D I feel for ya.
A 1Dx will give you the full frame like your 5D Mark III with double the frame rate. However same field of view.
The 1Dx is slightly faster compared to the 7D Mark II. However you loose the benefit of the added reach the 1.6 allows.
The 300 f/2.8 is one nice piece of glass!
Having the 5D Mark III and the 7D Mark II in your arsenal now, there is no way I would unload either one. I am looking to add the 7D Mark II myself. Believe me, you are really well covered for now in regards to bodies. Adding a 300 f/2.8 to both the 5D Mark III and the 7D Mark II allows you lots of great opportunities that many are salivating for.
Like a fine wine, don't rush it. Sit back and enjoy learning the fine details
of the 7D Mark II. It really is one hell of a camera.
Maybe the real question should be Red or White?

Owning both items in question, I'd always err on the side of new glass over a camera body.

The glass is tremendous and if taken care of will far outlast the body. The 300 is that good that you will never want to get rid of it, the body will always be replaced.

I sold my 5D3 this spring. I now have a 7D2 and 1DX. Get the glass now and the camera body later. The speed of the 7D2 is awesome for sports, the ISO performance of the 5D3 is great for night games. I think you will greatly enjoy the combos available to you.

I would also suggest the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 S lens. I shoot this on a 5DmkIII for figure skating and it is a fantastic lens. I also use the 70-200 F2.8IS II lens as well and to be honest can't seem to see much difference between them. If I had to try and split the difference I would probably lean towards the 120-300 as being the sharper lens.

Before you say I have a crap copy of the 70-200 you need to remember that I don't shoot at ISO200 or so. Most of my shots are at ISO6400 so there is going to be some detail loss from noise. I also have a good copy of both lenses. I find that the AF on the Sigma is really quite good. It doesn't focus as fast as the Canon lens if you try and go from min to max focus distance but it is pretty rare that you need the lens to pull focus that fast. It is more about keeping the object in focus as it moves and the Sigma does this pretty well.

Given that you are shooting low light I would look at either the Sigma 120-300 plus 5DmkIII or if you have the budget change out the 5D for the 1DX.

Jason.

Would definitely vote for the lens, but I'd take another look at the 400/2.8 as well. If you're cropping quite a bit with the 70-200 @200 even on a 7d2, the 400/2.8 would probably make the most sense. Even if the action is close I think the 'intimate' images the lens could produce would really change the feel of your shots. Paired with the 70-200/2.8 and 5D3/7d2 combo you might even find yourself craving for a new body less and less!

I think this comes down to the old principle of Glass >>> Camera. You have the 5D3 which is already a very capable body for sports. Sure, the 1DX will manhandle big glass a little better and give you better FPS. But anyone remotely capable should be producing good sports images with the 5D3.

When I got the 300 f/2.8 I was astounded at how different the images are from the 70-200 IS II. Both are phenomenal, but the long f/2.8 just has a special look about it. If cost is an issue you can pick up 300 USMs (the pre-IS version) for $1500-2000

I purchased a used 300 non IS two years ago and it dramatically improved my football shooting.

It will not help here, but I do like the 1DX together with the EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM. So if you in a future aim to own both, you'll have a nice piece of equipment.
As stated above, this lens works well together with the EF extender 1.4X III as well as with the EF extender 2X III.

Not to hijack the OP's post but I just went through this. I had a 7D and wanted to upgrade. I chose the 7D MK ll and just got a used 300 f2.8 IS. I think it was the right choice for me. I can shoot at ISO 10,000 and get cleaner shots than the 7D at ISO 6400.

I'm thinking of getting a 2X lll T.C. Anybody using that combination have pros or cons for me? I would be using this for daytime outdoor sports and wildlife.