Lens for night time sports?

I have been shooting daytime baseball and football for the last couple of years and now that most of the kids on these teams are going to be heading to High School next year, some of the parents have asked me to shoot their kids and I know a lot of the games will be at night. I find that while I love shooting with the 70-200, the reach can be troublesome at times.

My current system that I shoot with is:
5dIII
70-200 f/2.8 (version 1)

I have an opportunity to purchase the 100-400 II (used) and would like to hear from those of you if this lens would be a good choice for me to use. I know that the 5d3 has great high ISO but are there any other limitations to using this setup that I don't know about?

I am also thinking of getting a 2nd body to pair with either lens (depending on the lighting situation). I have heard good things about the 7d2 (longer reach being its a crop factor) but would something like a 1d mk IV be a better route? Budget for body approx 1k

I would like to purchase the lens in the next few weeks and then will be able to get a 2nd body after the new year since baseball won't start until spring.

If there are any other suggestions other than what I have mentioned I would truly appreciate your input.

The 100-400 II is a great lens, but I would not recommend it for night time sports.

I use f/2.8 lenses with a 1D X and still hate shooting baseball at night. I wouldn't even bother going if I had to give up another two stops.

I'd recommend taking the money you had planned for the 100-400 II and 2nd body and getting a used 300mm f/2.8L IS lens. The price for this lens has dropped significantly in the last year and not only is it a great focal length for baseball, it is a good all-around general purpose lens.

The 100-400 II is a great daytime sports lens. I would not recommend it for use at night. f/5.6 just won't cut it. If the budget doesn't allow for longer 2.8 glass, stick with the 70-200 for night stuff and wait for the action to come to you.

As for a second body, I would recommend a 1D IV over a 7D II. Though finding one for $1k may be a bit of a challenge. Both are nice bodies (I have one of each), but I find the files from the 1D to be better out of the camera and especially after post processing.

I would be tempted to just keep the 5dIII as an only body for now and put all the funds towards a 300 f/2.8.

High school night sports is about as demanding as it gets for gear.

pat.kane wrote in post #18176928
The 100-400 II is a great lens, but I would not recommend it for night time sports.

I use f/2.8 lenses with a 1D X and still hate shooting baseball at night. I wouldn't even bother going if I had to give up another two stops.

I'd recommend taking the money you had planned for the 100-400 II and 2nd body and getting a used 300mm f/2.8L IS lens. The price for this lens has dropped significantly in the last year and not only is it a great focal length for baseball, it is a good all-around general purpose lens.

rdalrt wrote in post #18176931
The 100-400 II is a great daytime sports lens. I would not recommend it for use at night. f/5.6 just won't cut it. If the budget doesn't allow for longer 2.8 glass, stick with the 70-200 for night stuff and wait for the action to come to you.

As for a second body, I would recommend a 1D IV over a 7D II. Though finding one for $1k may be a bit of a challenge. Both are nice bodies (I have one of each), but I find the files from the 1D to be better out of the camera and especially after post processing.

I would be tempted to just keep the 5dIII as an only body for now and put all the funds towards a 300 f/2.8.

High school night sports is about as demanding as it gets for gear.

Heh, great minds think alike?

rdalrt wrote in post #18176931
The 100-400 II is a great daytime sports lens. I would not recommend it for use at night. f/5.6 just won't cut it. If the budget doesn't allow for longer 2.8 glass, stick with the 70-200 for night stuff and wait for the action to come to you.

As for a second body, I would recommend a 1D IV over a 7D II. Though finding one for $1k may be a bit of a challenge. Both are nice bodies (I have one of each), but I find the files from the 1D to be better out of the camera and especially after post processing.

I would be tempted to just keep the 5dIII as an only body for now and put all the funds towards a 300 f/2.8.

High school night sports is about as demanding as it gets for gear.

Thanks for the info.
If I was to stick with the 70-200, would it be better to get a crop like the 7d2 for the extra reach then?

Thanks Pat for the reply. I could see where the 300 would be good for baseball, but what about football where the action is coming towards you. That's why I thought a 2nd body would come into play.

Mr. Bill wrote in post #18176953
Thanks for the info.
If I was to stick with the 70-200, would it be better to get a crop like the 7d2 for the extra reach then?

Mr. Bill wrote in post #18176954
Thanks Pat for the reply. I could see where the 300 would be good for baseball, but what about football where the action is coming towards you. That's why I thought a 2nd body would come into play.

Don't forget the 1D IV is a 1.3 crop. I would still recommend it over the 7D II for anything at night.

The 300 is still actually a bit short for football. You would be surprised how close the action could get to you even with a 300 before you would have to switch to something shorter. Especially on a FF like the 5D III.

I completely disagree regarding f/5.6 for sports. Here's a set at the link below using the 5DM3 and the 100-400 Mk I. 1/500s, f/5.6, and ISO from 10,000 to 16,000. From what I understand, the Mk II lens has better IQ, but the Mk I is very effective for me with soccer as it is push/pull zoom. When the action moves from directly in front of you to the other end of the field, you push it out and you're there. Focus is very quick; I imagine the Mk II is quicker.

The 5DM3 can work well at high ISO. This isn't the film days. I shot color film at ASA 1000 when it was new. I have no issue shooting at 5 digit ISOs.

http://grahamglover.ze​nfolio.com/p380696282

I started with 6d and 100-400l I but even when it was overcast I struggled to keep ISO below 3200 and at night I was typically shooting at 6400 or 12800 to keep shutter speed better than 1/800.

I bought a 7dii and 300 2.8l is and haven't looked back. It has been great. I actually use that and a 70-200 l is ii on a 70d in combination for kids soccer. It's fast enough and I get good isolation. However even with this combination I find myself at ISO 6400-12800 at times.

I was hoping that the 5div would be a couple stops better in low light but so far it seams to be less than one...

I still use the 100-400 l is ii sometimes during the day for sports and definitely for wildlife with a 1.4x on my 7dii but I would not recommend it for nighttime high school sports.

Watch a major college or professional night football game on television and you're likely to see a substantial number of Canon 400mm f/2.8 lenses in use. They're acknowledged to do a good job at a high price.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com/c/product/73210​9-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_​400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

Mr. Bill wrote in post #18176909
I have been shooting daytime baseball and football for the last couple of years and now that most of the kids on these teams are going to be heading to High School next year, some of the parents have asked me to shoot their kids and I know a lot of the games will be at night. I find that while I love shooting with the 70-200, the reach can be troublesome at times.

My current system that I shoot with is:
5dIII
70-200 f/2.8 (version 1)

I have an opportunity to purchase the 100-400 II (used) and would like to hear from those of you if this lens would be a good choice for me to use. I know that the 5d3 has great high ISO but are there any other limitations to using this setup that I don't know about?

I am also thinking of getting a 2nd body to pair with either lens (depending on the lighting situation). I have heard good things about the 7d2 (longer reach being its a crop factor) but would something like a 1d mk IV be a better route? Budget for body approx 1k

I would like to purchase the lens in the next few weeks and then will be able to get a 2nd body after the new year since baseball won't start until spring.

If there are any other suggestions other than what I have mentioned I would truly appreciate your input.

Monopod, crank the ISO without fear, have fun. Not sure what you mean about 'reach' unless you mean you can't crop as aggressively with ISO noise involved.

I ended up 400 f/4 DO and just move the ISO up. You could shoot the 100-400 high ISO, my guess is you'll just miss focus more in lower light unless you go to a 1D body, but I don't own what you have, and I could be completely wrong. What you'll surely face is more post-processing, any direction you go, unless odd color casts don't bother you at all.

I use a 1Dmk4 and a 70-200 f/2.8 for soccer, day and floodlit. Personally, I'd avoid anything that doesn't give you a wide aperture. Less than 1/500th is difficult for sports. ISO can be dealt with in software, blur can't. What you can achieve depends on the lighting. In Mathogre's example above, lighting looks pretty good. I have to deal with a lot worse!

DC Fan wrote in post #18177243
Watch a major college or professional night football game on television and you're likely to see a substantial number of Canon 400mm f/2.8 lenses in use. They're acknowledged to do a good job at a high price.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com/c/product/73210​9-USA/Canon_4412B002_EF_​400mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

I am sure this is a great lens! With this however, you're now in the two body mode, as the 400mm is good for the far half of the field only. Up close and personal, you need something with a shorter focal length. You have zero time to change lenses. At our football games, there's a guy with a 400 f/2.8 on a monopod, and that's all he brings. Impressive as it looks to everyone else seeing him, I know what it means. He's still missing half of the shots.

"Look at me! I've got this BIG LENS! Size matters."

"Um, you're missing half of the action, and I'm getting it all."

Here's two body mode. You have one camera body with the 400 f/2.8 and another with the 70-200 f/2.8. You use the appropriate kit depending on where the action is on the field. Additional expense for the second body and lens is $13,000 to $17,000, depending on how you go with the second body. Based on the OP, this is high school sports. Most of us doing high school sports choke on the expense of a 100-400mm lens. Even my Mk I lens was used. Going to a high end pro lens and a second high end body is beyond what one could expect to achieve through spousal negotiation.

mathogre wrote in post #18177382
[...]the 400mm is good for the far half of the field only. [...] At our football games, there's a guy with a 400 f/2.8 on a monopod, and that's all he brings. Impressive as it looks to everyone else seeing him, I know what it means. He's still missing half of the shots.

My guess is he's getting 85%+ of the action. He just looks for a different image to capture similar to what I show below. I just looked at the images from my last two football games and 84% were from the 400mm and 16% from the 70-200mm.

IF you have good light you might do OK at higher ISO's. If not, don't bother.