New 1 D markIII lens thoughts

I am new to the 1d club and love my (new) 1D mark III, Looking for new glass for Christmas. The 24-70 2.8 or 135 f2 are in the running. I do a fair amount of sports in bad light, swimming, football, basketball all at the highschool level. Links to this subject and or comments are greatly appreciated. Just do not have enough clicks on the body to know whats best. My 70-200 and 50 1.4 are smoking hot. Thanks

I think if you add the cannon 85 1.8 to your bag you cant go wrong for indoor sports.
the 24-70 might be ok but when you need the high iso above 3200 the 1.8 of f2 will help.

see this topic... https://photography-on-the.net …7846&highlight=​basketball

Joe

I'm also a big fan of my 85mm on my mk II n, but your sig would suggest you already know that! Your lenses look fairly long, you can shoot sport wider and I think it can be a nice change. Especially if the high school lets you court side. Have you consider the 16-35? Maybe the Tamron 16-28 f2.8. Unless you want a walkaround lens that's te way I'd go, and I'm also primarily a sport shooter.

The 40mm STM also works out at 50mm on a 1.3x, with a wodeangle zoom, 40/50/85 then your 70-200, you'd have it covered.

Tl;dr not everyone needs a 300mm f2.8 to shoot sport, wide mixes its up and can look very dramatic!

1D3 plus 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is great in gym lighting. I don't remember if I was using ISO-3200 or 6400, but the pictures turned out very well for me. For you shooting at f/4 you will almost have to be shooting ISO-6400. But I have noticed that the camera handles it pretty well. This pic is a little dark, but it's my fault. I changed the setting just as the kick started.

With 70-200 and 50 in the bag I'd go with the 24-70.

Thanks guys..I do have the 85 1.8 which is great in basketball just have not used it on the 1d, yes, I can get court side, side lines and pool side. I gave thought to the 16-35 but ended up get the 17-40 f4,

kawi love that shot! I have a 2.8 just not is on my 70-200. It seems to be so strong on this body.

I had a 1D3 since it was introduced, until this week. I never was able to have much success with f/2.8 lenses doing indoor sports in the lighting that the gyms I shot in provided. I carried around a bag of primes all the time - 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, 200 f/1.8, and 400 f/2.8 for field sports. I also have the TC1.4 and TC2, which adds to flexibility for outdoor shooting. The most used usually depended on the sport, but the 135 definitely saw the most action indoors, followed closely by the 200. I eventually got rid of the 50, because the only thing I used it for was basketball, and I wasn't shooting much basketball anymore.

convergent wrote in post #15267403
I had a 1D3 since it was introduced, until this week. I never was able to have much success with f/2.8 lenses doing indoor sports in the lighting that the gyms I shot in provided. I carried around a bag of primes all the time - 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, 200 f/1.8, and 400 f/2.8 for field sports. I also have the TC1.4 and TC2, which adds to flexibility for outdoor shooting. The most used usually depended on the sport, but the 135 definitely saw the most action indoors, followed closely by the 200. I eventually got rid of the 50, because the only thing I used it for was basketball, and I wasn't shooting much basketball anymore.

I was thinking the 135 maybe a good lens....I understand its a great portrait lens a s well. Thanks

J.David wrote in post #15270518
I was thinking the 135 maybe a good lens....I understand its a great portrait lens a s well. Thanks

It is... the 135 f/2 is way faster autofocusing than either the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, which is why I usually opted for it if I could. For volleyball and swimming you'll probably love it. It is a little awkward for basketball because its too long for under the basket and too short for defensive shots on the other end. Its good for around the key though. Its actually better on a 1.6 crop for basketball to do long end defensive shots. I use the 200 for that on the 1D3, but that's in another league of $$$$. I think the 135 may be a little short for football too.

One thing about the 135 is it takes the TCs very well and is compatible with both the Canon TC1.4 and TC2. With the TC1.4 that gives you a very compact 189 f/2.8.... but it is slower to AF though.

I think the 135L is the ticket already.