Sports shooting setup

I want to move more into the sports photography field and recognize that first I need to gain some experience and build up a decent portfolio images. My current setup is a bit limited (20D + 70-200f2.8L) so I will be upgrading in the near future. The question is what setup to go for. I am reasonably sure I know what will work the best for me but I am interested in some comments on the options I am considering just in case there is something that I hadn’t thought of.

The two main options are keep my current body and by some longer fast glass, or sell the 20D and buy a refurbished 1DMkII and some slower glass. For the sake of the argument I have assumed that I can sell the 20D for around US$700 (6,500 clicks).

The options are:

1) 20D + Canon 300f/2.8IS L = US$3,899
2) 1D + Sigma 300f/2.8 (US$1,200 + US$2,599 - US$700) = US$3,099
3) 1DMkII + Canon 300f/4IS L (US$2,499 + US$1,149 - US$700) = US$2,948

I am leaning towards option three as I think that it is the best overall compromise. From what I have read the lens is really sharp and I gain the AF of the 1 series. The 1 stop speed drop compared to option 2 is made up for the better high ISO performance of the MkII vs. the 1D. I’m pretty sure that the AF on the 20D won’t really cut it so option 1 is out (even though I’d love the 300f2.8 lens). The price is also much higher but I could always reduce this to around $3,400 by looking at second hand glass.

Any thoughts?

opt #4 - 1D MKII + Sigma 120-300 f2.8

I have #3 without IS and I found f4 is good when there's light. When it's darker, I use the 70-200 2.8. I wish I have the 120-300 2.8. The 300/2.8 is too far, way too far.

Yeah I thought about the Sigma 120-300f2.8 but it is around US$2,700 so I would have to go with a 1D though and forget the MkII. I have read lots of good reports about it and there are a number of guys using it that post regularly in the Sports section. Lots of good images....

I know that there will be a limitation with an f4 maximum aperture but I do have the 70-200f/2.8 which I can use in low light and sacrifice some reach....

You could probably get away a little cheaper if you ditched the IS.Shouldnt need it shooting sports anyway.

I would go with option #3 and keep the 20D for the 70-200L.

1D + 300mm f/2.8L non-IS?

Rumrunner wrote in post #3201934
I would go with option #3 and keep the 20D for the 70-200L.

I'd like to keep the 20D as a backup but I need to sell it to offset some of the upgrade cost....

Lani Kai wrote in post #3202076
1D + 300mm f/2.8L non-IS?.

That was pretty much my thinking on option 1. $3,900 is really a bit out of reach so it would be actually more like a used non IS. I have seen one on KEH for about $3,400.

I'm not sure about this as I think that the 1D is about 2 stops worse off for noise so I would effectively be loosing a stop over the MkII and 300f/4 glass....

JasonW wrote in post #3202340
I'd like to keep the 20D as a backup but I need to sell it to offset some of the upgrade cost....

What selling the 20D picking up a used 300D for cheap so that you can still use the 70-200mm? You would likely get a whole lot more shots with more effective focal length on hand..

You didn't say what kind of sports you would be shooting. Unless you are shooting something where you have to have the extra reach you should be able to get away with your current 70-200 non-IS. Get a 1DMkII either the N or non-N. The 20D just doesn't have the AF speed and accuracy to keep up with the action in sports the way the 1-series does.

Just start with the camera body and go out and shoot. I know many sports shooters that do not have a 300 2.8 and get by just fine. You can easily do baseball, covering the infield and batter's box. You can also cover 60% of the field in youth soccer, 90% if you don't mind moving around.

While the 300 F4 is a fine lens, it is not one that I would use for sports. It just doesn't have the speed to keep up with what is going on. As you get more into sports sell the 20D and pick up a 1D as a backup. The 1D uses the same batteries and accessories as the MkII series. There is a lot to be said for not having to carry 2 kinds of batteries and chargers.

Just my .02

Rumrunner wrote in post #3202451
What selling the 20D picking up a used 300D for cheap so that you can still use the 70-200mm? You would likely get a whole lot more shots with more effective focal length on hand..

Good thought. Maybe a 10D. I have seen these going quite cheap

mspringfield wrote in post #3202488
You didn't say what kind of sports you would be shooting. Unless you are shooting something where you have to have the extra reach you should be able to get away with your current 70-200 non-IS. Get a 1DMkII either the N or non-N. The 20D just doesn't have the AF speed and accuracy to keep up with the action in sports the way the 1-series does.

Just start with the camera body and go out and shoot. I know many sports shooters that do not have a 300 2.8 and get by just fine. You can easily do baseball, covering the infield and batter's box. You can also cover 60% of the field in youth soccer, 90% if you don't mind moving around.

While the 300 F4 is a fine lens, it is not one that I would use for sports. It just doesn't have the speed to keep up with what is going on. As you get more into sports sell the 20D and pick up a 1D as a backup. The 1D uses the same batteries and accessories as the MkII series. There is a lot to be said for not having to carry 2 kinds of batteries and chargers.

Just my .02

Thanks for your thoughts. I have only really shot baseball to date and got away with the 70-200. To build up a decent portfolio in Australia I will need to focus more on Aussie Rules Football (AFL). This sport is the main focus of the media in Adelaide so hence the need to cover it. Most of the stuff I will shoot initially will be during the day so I am hoping that f4 will be ok. I should be able to get away with 1/500 shutter speeds which I think I can achieve at ISO800. The game is also played at night but really only at national level. If I ever get to shoot these games I'm sure I will be able to either get access to or justify buying a 400f2.8 which is really what is needed.

Is the aperture the only thing you are referring to regarding speed or do you think that focus is also an issue?

I'd keep what you have and build your portfolio with it, watch what others are shooting to see just what you need. Your 70-200 should be enough to cover most sports, if the action is too far wait 'til it comes to you. One option you didn't mention is that you will need at least 2 bodies, one for long and one for near; especially if you are shooting a 300mm. With only one and you are shooting with a 300; the action comes close you are back to the same only opposite scenario as you have now with your 70-200.

Jack

watch for a used 120-300 f2.8 and start using it with your 20D. They usually go for $1,500-$1,800. Then when you have the funds upgrade the camera to a 1 series. Remember camera's depreciate quickly lens do not. If you are serious about any action sports you need f2.8 and 300mm.

As a FYI I often think about "upgrading" to the 300 f2.8 non IS for sports. Then I think about all the times when I change the focal length on the fly on my Sigma.

Dale

JasonW wrote in post #3202537
Is the aperture the only thing you are referring to regarding speed or do you think that focus is also an issue?

It is really a combination of both. You will need aperture to get the shutter speeds that you need and you will need the AF speed and tracking accuracy of the 1-series to give you more keepers. Given what you are shooting it sounds as if you really need the reach so I would have to change my recommendation, go for the glass. If your budget allows the 1DMkII and the 300 2.8 combo would be the optimum choice. If not then look for a used 300 2.8 non-IS. While IS is nice it is not as useful for sports as you would think. When using my 70-200 IS for sports I rarely have the IS on.

Michael

I fairly new here and I too have the 20D with the 70-200 F2.8L IS lense. I'm shooting mainly little league and ice hockey of my 7 year old. Not really sure why but should I not have the IS on? and why?

YaYa wrote in post #3228372
I fairly new here and I too have the 20D with the 70-200 F2.8L IS lense. I'm shooting mainly little league and ice hockey of my 7 year old. Not really sure why but should I not have the IS on? and why?

It takes time for the IS to spin up and if you are shooting fast enough to stop motion blur you don't need the benefit of IS.