for basketball is it better to upgrade to FF or changes lenses for basketball

ok guys, need your help.

been trying to decide what to do, to help with our terribly lit basketball gym and my 7dII with an old sigma 70-200 2.8 and tamron 24-70.

I was thinking of the following:
just pick up the sigma 50-100 1.8 and maybe a 17-55 canon 2.8? The 50-100 1.8 should really help with my situation and focal range might help too....
or
swap my old sigma for a canon II or III 70-200 2.8 to help somewhat with quality and focus etc... although not sure this would yield enough help. many of my shots are out of focus some my fault some I think the lens fault in low light as when I'm in a good gym the sigma seems to be fine.

BUT now with the huge sale on the 5dIV.. this brings up a serious question of maybe just selling my 7dII and grabbing the 5dIV? this would allow a better focal range of the 70-200 2.8, true 2.8, and arent these lenses really designed for FF in the first place? wouldn't that give much better low light performance?

I Really don't know what to do here, would love some opinions from you guys are you all are way more experienced.

I do not get paid and only do this for my son, his team, the school and the parents yet I really want to do one more upgrade to improve the quality of my pictures.

and I do love some features of the 7dII, like auto iso, anti flicker, 10 FPS, the 65 point AF system etc... but I see the 5dIV has some of these as well.

Thanks,

You know my story, I went from the 7d2 to the 5d4, everything improved other than AF being about equal and fps dropped by 3 from 10 to 7. The 5D4 has a few tricks up its sleeve that the 7D2 doesn't too, the only thing the 7D2 has over the 5D4 is 10fps and greater pixel pitch, if that is something you leverage.

A 70-200 works great for basketball on a FF, and you get a 1.5 stop improvement in ISO across all the lenses you own, and not just a boost from a single lens on the 7D2.

I just think a 5D4 would be a better move than another Sigma lens overall, I like Sigma, but I have found them to be a bit deficient in certain shooting conditions, sports being one of them. I have owned many, many Sigma lenses, and still own 2 so this isn't a bias against Sigma, I just know what happens once their lenses lose tracking and the time it takes to reacquire being worse than Canon's.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18975927
You know my story, I went from the 7d2 to the 5d4, everything improved other than AF being about equal and fps dropped by 3 from 10 to 7.

A 70-200 works great for basketball on a FF, and you get a 1.5 stop improvement in ISO across all the lenses you own, and not just a boost from a single lens on the 7D2.

I just think a 5D4 would be a better move than another Sigma lens overall, I like Sigma, but I have found them to be a bit deficient in certain shooting conditions, sports being one of them. I have owned many, many Sigma lenses, and still own 2 so this isn't a bias against Sigma, I just know what happens once their lenses lose tracking and the time it takes to reacquire being worse than Canon's.

right.. this is what I thought.. so is the 1.5 stop a big improvement in real world terms? Also, I would still be stuck with my current sigma 70-200 or would it work much better on a FF in low light with the 5dIV?

I also shoot my sons basketball. I personally like to use my 24L and 135L with either of my bodies. I've owned some Tamron lenses in the past and the autofocus wasn't quite as good as Canons but I try to keep it really simple and have everything set to manual with just 1 autofocus point so for me either of my cameras work well, even my old 5d2 ( but I need to anticipate a bit more since it's slower ).

Are you shooting manual? How you have your settings will make a huge difference. I generally push the ISO to keep a fast shutter of around 1/500 or faster if possible. I'd take a little noise over a blurry photo.

and If I can sell or get maybe $500 for my 7dII, at 1999 for a 5d I'm really only out about $1500, not much more than the price of the sigma 50-100 1.8? this is my though process anyhow but I would still be concerned with how my current sigma 70-200 will do on the 5dIV... I'm not sure I can get the 5dIV and also swap my sigma for a canon 70-200..... that might be too much money involved for me right now..

Tommydigi wrote in post #18975932
I also shoot my sons basketball. I personally like to use my 24L and 135L with either of my bodies. I've owned some Tamron lenses in the past and the autofocus wasn't quite as good as Canons but I try to keep it really simple and have everything set to manual with just 1 autofocus point so for me either of my cameras work well, even my old 5d2 ( but I need to anticipate a bit more since it's slower ).

Are you shooting manual? How you have your settings will make a huge difference. I generally push the ISO to keep a fast shutter of around 1/500 or faster if possible. I'd take a little noise over a blurry photo.

yes.. Manual, usually I try to get to 1/640, auto ISO, f2.8... but yes I find both of my lenses have a hard time in our home gym with focusing... not so bad when there is better lighting in other gyms but in our gym or poorly lit gyms its tough with the 7dII and the sigma or the tamron....

this is why I was considering the options, which appear to be 3 at this point:
1. leave the 7dII, swap both lenses for canon 70-200 and perhaps the 17-55 (since on a crop the 17-55 basically can do the job of the 24-70 at a third of the price)
2. just pick up the sigma 50-100 and see if the 1.8 on the 7dII will make everything better and still swap for the 17-55.
or
3. new option, just upgrade to FF but them Im kind of stuck with the same lenses..
just hard to know as the sigma 70-200 does do find when there is more light so will the FF allow the sigma to perform better or as it does when there is more light?

My advice: learn to use the equipment that you already have before buying new cameras/lenses.

From looking at some of the images that you posted in the link in another thread, it is quite clear that the reason the images are out of focus is because the focus point was NOT on the player.

You need to improve on your technique and use a faster shutter speed.

john crossley wrote in post #18975957
My advice: learn to use the equipment that you already have before buying new cameras/lenses.

From looking at some of the images that you posted in the link in another thread, it is quite clear that the reason the images are out of focus is because the focus point was NOT on the player.

You need to improve on your technique and use a faster shutter speed.

I understand and don't disagree.. however when I'm in other gyms these lenses and focus seem to be much better which makes me question if it's really me missing all the time.here are a few examples of our gym from saturday, and two others recently that seem so much better:

saturday in our gym: https://joey1116.smugm​ug.com …-Varsity-vs-Mater-121419/

recent other gyms: https://joey1116.smugm​ug.com …ntlet-Finals-Texas-72319/

and even this one nearby last week: https://joey1116.smugm​ug.com …arsity-Cooper-City-12919/

I was in a similar situation but with volleyball - so same cruddy lighting.
I found the 85 1.8 was a good interim compromise as the focusing is quite fast and sharp and has the extra stops over a 2.8.
But in the end, I found the poorer low light capabilities of the 7D2 compared to the 5D4 were more of an impediment to me than 10fps.
I am VERY happy with the switch to the 5D4 - took a bit of playing around with settings to get it where I like - had lots of out of focus shots - but I think that's because it is very sensitive and accurate - so it was 99.9999% user error (give or take)- but the resolution in poor light is significantly better than the 7D2 IMO.
I liked the shutter sound of the 7D2 better, and I do miss 10fps. I do record video form time to time and the 5D4 touch screen focusing is terrific (especially for when I forget my glasses!), not to mention the resolution.
Moral of the story? Get a 1Dx2?? lol.

They have great deals on Canon 5d4 refurbs right now if you do go that route.

DrMitch wrote in post #18976001
I was in a similar situation but with volleyball - so same cruddy lighting.
I found the 85 1.8 was a good interim compromise as the focusing is quite fast and sharp and has the extra stops over a 2.8.
But in the end, I found the poorer low light capabilities of the 7D2 compared to the 5D4 were more of an impediment to me than 10fps.
I am VERY happy with the switch to the 5D4 - took a bit of playing around with settings to get it where I like - had lots of out of focus shots - but I think that's because it is very sensitive and accurate - so it was 99.9999% user error (give or take)- but the resolution in poor light is significantly better than the 7D2 IMO.
I liked the shutter sound of the 7D2 better, and I do miss 10fps. I do record video form time to time and the 5D4 touch screen focusing is terrific (especially for when I forget my glasses!), not to mention the resolution.
Moral of the story? Get a 1Dx2?? lol.

LOL.. 1dX isn't an option and I can't really upgrade both body and lens... so it leaves the question (to which I keep hearing completely opposite advice) which is:

1. do I get the 5dIV and remain with my old sigma 70-200 2.8 or
2. do I keep the 7dII and upgrade the 70-200 to the canon II or III or
3. this seems like not the best option, but keep all and just add the sigma 50-100 1.8 on the 7dII

https://shop.usa.canon​.com …-mark-iv-body-refurbished - $1800
https://shop.usa.canon​.com …0-200mm-f-28l-refurbished - $1080 (don't need IS when shooting sports at 1/640th or more)

HOLIDAY19 for 10% off

= 1880 - 188 = $1700 not including tax, but you also get 1 year warranty

Sell the 7D2 and Sigma 70-200, and your upgrade might cost you about $400.

Add $550 to upgrade to the MKII of the 70-200 with IS: https://shop.usa.canon​.com …28l-is-ii-usm-refurbished

This means if you do the MKII 70-200 and 5D4 through this, you will have spent as much as just getting the 50-100 1.8, but you would have a much better platform.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18976022
https://shop.usa.canon​.com …-mark-iv-body-refurbished - $1800
https://shop.usa.canon​.com …0-200mm-f-28l-refurbished - $1080 (don't need IS when shooting sports at 1/640th or more)

HOLIDAY19 for 10% off

= 1880 - 188 = $1700 not including tax, but you also get 1 year warranty

Sell the 7D2 and Sigma 70-200, and your upgrade might cost you about $400.

Add $550 to upgrade to the MKII of the 70-200 with IS: https://shop.usa.canon​.com …28l-is-ii-usm-refurbished

This means if you do the MKII 70-200 and 5D4 through this, you will have spent as much as just getting the 50-100 1.8, but you would have a much better platform.

interesting... is refurbished a good idea? better than used in good condition? the savings isn't much $200 off the new lens and camera so I'm not sure it's worth it to me... but I like the idea and I'm going to start with the 70-200 canon lens.. is there any other difference between the I, II & III? I would love to get a II and I see them used in good shape for $1300-$1400... is that better than refurbished?
Also, where do I sell my sigma and other gear once I don't need it? They don't offer much on trade at the places like B&H and Adorama.. better to sell privately here or somewhere else? all my equipment is in mint condition, all bought new with receipts and everything that came with...

john crossley wrote in post #18976037
Here is a random image from your website. The reason the player is out of focus is because the focus point was on the wall and NOT on the player. That is down to technique and NOT equipment.

You can buy the best cameras and lenses in the world, but if you can't keep the focus point on the subject you will continue to get out of focus images.

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1015718 has been deleted. ]

yes this one was bad.. and in this case you are right however there are many where I nailed the focus point yet still blurry... I know this as when it appears on the back screen of the camera it does show the red focus point used so while this one was my error, many are not hence the reasons for some slight upgrades.

john crossley wrote in post #18976070
In this picture the shutter speed is far too slow. You shot it at 1/320. You need to be at an absolute minimum of 1/640. 1/1000+ is better still.

I strongly advise you to learn how to use what you already have before spending money on new equipment.

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1015726 has been deleted. ]

That’s a mistake I slowed shutter speed for some of the still warm up shots and forgot to increase it back probably