still a good time to buy a mkIV?

If that is your budget, then perhaps the 1DX should indeed be what you look at. That would take up just under 1/2 your budget, but leaves you quite a bit for some good lenses. With all the improvements other than just ISO on the 1DX (AF, MFA at both ends of a zoom, better auto-ISO, configurable buttons, etc), you would have to decide if the $3000 or so is worth all of that over the 1D4, or if you would rather put that into other equipment.

If I had that budget, I would probably seriously consider:
- 1DX
- 70-200 f2.8 II
- 24-70 f4 IS
- Sigma 120-300 sports

I would try to either leverage sales, canon refurb specials, or lightly used items on the boards to keep all this in budget, but this would be a great overall package. Let's just say, there wouldn't be anything there really to hold you back, other than the size/weight of the Sigma.

I will definitely tell you the 5D3 is a great sports camera, I used it this past entire NBA season, and was able to work with high ISO images pretty well. The 1DX is that on steroids. I also used the 70-200 f2.8 IS MKI lens 99% of the season.

ISO 16000

KGII wrote in post #17033395
My. Budget is the 10K range. This has been set aside for a while as I've had a well paying job for years, and while it is $12k it 1) won't be all bought at once and 2)it is money that has been saved for this purpose.

In terms of 2.8 vs 4.0 our football field at the high school is very poorly lit, along with the high school hockey rink, I have very strong ties to people in the athletic department still and hope to use that that as a way to get towards shooting nicer events and making some side money. I hope that all makes sense.

Makes sense.

Consider:

Canon 1DIV or 5D3
Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS Sport (I'd get this over the 300 & 70-200 for your use)
Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART (those portraits you spoke of; why compromise here?)

Very best,

KGII wrote in post #17033416
12-300 almost had a heart attack.

lol, now wouldn't that be a funny looking lens?! fixed...

MalVeauX wrote in post #17033425
Makes sense.

Consider:

Canon 1DIV or 5D3
Sigma 120-300 F2.8 OS Sport (I'd get this over the 300 & 70-200 for your use)
Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART (those portraits you spoke of; why compromise here?)

Very best,

I was looking at the art but I don't have much of a reason to spend that much on a "facebook/Twitter icon" lens. That's all it would be used for.
Does anyone know if BL has the 120-300. I'm looking to do a rental before I take the plunge

Lensrentals do...

http://www.lensrentals​.com ….8-dg-os-hsm-a1-for-canon

KGII wrote in post #17033439
I was looking at the art but I don't have much of a reason to spend that much on a "facebook/Twitter icon" lens. That's all it would be used for.
Does anyone know if BL has the 120-300. I'm looking to do a rental before I take the plunge

Understood.

40 F2.8 makes total sense then (though you could also just grab a second body, like a mirrorless so that there's no changing of lenses in the field; I carry a little wee EOS-M with a 22mm F2 lens for this kind of stuff, just a thought).

Very best,

Probably another year or two out for me -- when they hit $1200, and I'll sell my 1D3 for ~$500 then? All I'm missing is resolution, and it's not a big enough limiter for me to fret much about it.

I'm looking forward to it, but I've got glass issues to fight until then

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17033427
lol, now wouldn't that be a funny looking lens?! fixed...

need a truck to carry it around

MalVeauX wrote in post #17033450
Understood.

40 F2.8 makes total sense then (though you could also just grab a second body, like a mirrorless so that there's no changing of lenses in the field; I carry a little wee EOS-M with a 22mm F2 lens for this kind of stuff, just a thought).

Very best,

was a thought, sadly we just bought my mom a sony rx100II when i was hoping wed go for the eosM. my other thought was a SL1, as a little toy. imagine seeing that on the end of say a 600mm

one last question. do i get the 300mm or 70-200 first?

I have both. The 70-200 is much more versatile than the 300 mm. But the 300 mm works fine with teleconverters (I have the updated version called EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM), which in turn translates it to a 420 mm f/4 and a 600 mm f/5.6 as well.
I've not tried the prior versions of the 70-200, but the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM is indeed a very good lens. Probably the best in its class, all manufacturers counted. It also handles the teleconverters very well, for a zoom.

KGII wrote in post #17032789
I shot 4 years of high school sports, both at the division and state championship level with a sony. I sold my camera to pay for some of college, but I'm now looking to come back and shoot hockey and baseball. My question is, is it still a good time to buy a 1D mk IV, or should I just jump ahead and get a 1DX? I'm looking for a 300mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 if the 300 is too long for hockey. And opinions? I'm new to canons so Im open to any advice.

For what you do and your budget, the 1DX + 300/2.8IS +70-200ISII would be perfect. I wouldn't worry about timing when buying gear if you need it now, but if you can wait there's supposedly a 1DXmkII that might be announced next month

apersson850 wrote in post #17034307
I have both. The 70-200 is much more versatile than the 300 mm. But the 300 mm works fine with teleconverters (I have the updated version called EF 300 mm f/2.8L IS II USM), which in turn translates it to a 420 mm f/4 and a 600 mm f/5.6 as well.
I've not tried the prior versions of the 70-200, but the EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM is indeed a very good lens. Probably the best in its class, all manufacturers counted. It also handles the teleconverters very well, for a zoom.

Agreed, the versatility of the MKII with a 1.4x and 2x is very good. AF speed drops a bit though with the 2x. A 70-200 on a FF is very, very versatile.

The MKI was very good by itself, but I didn't get the kind of results with a 1.4x or 2x that I am on the MKII.

KGII wrote in post #17032789
I shot 4 years of high school sports, both at the division and state championship level with a sony. I sold my camera to pay for some of college, but I'm now looking to come back and shoot hockey and baseball. My question is, is it still a good time to buy a 1D mk IV, or should I just jump ahead and get a 1DX? I'm looking for a 300mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8 if the 300 is too long for hockey. And opinions? I'm new to canons so Im open to any advice.

I have both of those lenses and also have a 1DX to replace my 1D4 - unfortunately, I am not a sports photographer!
A friend of mine shoots sports (Rugby) for a local and regional clubs and these are his Go To lenses.
As to the cameras - I was delighted with the performance of my 1D4 and could not find any significant (or minor) fault with it. The 1D4 is a very fast camera (i don't mean frame rate) in that it is locked on and shooting whilst other cameras are still thinking about it! When I changed to the 1DX I noticed a significant improvement. I had both for 4 months (before my 1D4 was sold) so I had plenty of time to compare. Naturally the 1DX is newer technology so it should be better and, frankly, it is in every respect except weight, price and I hate the new menu system! The 1DX is even faster at acquiring subjects and the AF is better (which is saying something!), the ISO performance is also a step up. With the 1D4 I was happy to 3200 and would use 6400 if necessary - with the 1DX those numbers are 8000 and 16000 respectively.
If your budget extends to it then a good used or new 1DX is the best option, however the 1D4 is much cheaper and still an excellent camera by any standards!