Enough screwing around...i'm sick of this.

Something folks haven't mentioned yet is Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.c​om)

I've only tried the Demo version, but I'm impressed thus far...If you're stuck with having to use HIGH ISO to get the image, Neat Image is going to help.

Neat Image helps but it cannot replace a large aperture lens.

Using Neat Image to clear significant noisy photos may cause loss of details or fake appearance. (Certainly, there are settings in Neat Image to lower the extent of noise cleaning...). And a large aperture lens is always better.

Hence my saying "If you're stuck with having to use HIGH ISO to get the image, Neat Image is going to help."

Of course it's always preferred to have the better equipment, and even so there's going to be situations where you're still stuck with having to use higher ISO to get the image.

Neat Image is just another software tool to help.

I thought about this some tonight at work.

I think what i'm going to do is to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My reasoning for this is the following:

1.)Based on my testing at the football field, 200mm should suffice for distance.

2.) Having 70mm on the camera will help with closer sideline shots, much more so then 100mm

3.) F/2.8, need i say more? it was never something i denyed, but based on some testing i did last night at the park which has similer lighting...f/5.6 just is too much...or, not enough (you know what i mean)

4.) Although i want a nice telephoto lens for things like birds and the like, the truth is that i'm in a rush to get this before football season begins, that gives me roughly 2 and a half months to come up with $1500+. The point is, my ture desire right now for this lens is for the football...after football season i will more then likely start to save up for something longer.

5.) The 120-300 sigma seems to be a great lens, but at a much higher price...and for what? 100mm and no IS? Not to mention...i'd rather not put sigma gear on my camera, i know it matters not, but lets be honest, if you had the choice between two lenses that gave you identical shots (not to say they will) and one was white with a red stripe, and the other was black and said "sigma" (rahter then canon, which just about any shmuck knows). And then you have to take this to sporting events? I know what i'd pick.

So yeah...i think that this will work for me...thanks for the input folks

I'm sure you won't be sorry...............

And with a 2x TC, you still get a 400 f5.6 at the long end.

Ro1

My bank account will be

I wont be able to afford it for about a month, maybe two...and this means i wont be getting a printer anytime soon, which is ok as i can always print them later...it's kind of hard to take pictures without a lens though

Keep in mind that IS will not help you with getting sharp pictures of motion. It is great for low light of static shots, but if you are shooting at 1/30th to 1/125 of fast moving football players, you are still going to get blur, even with IS.

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and love it. I take a lot of pictures in low light arenas, barns, convention centers and other big, poorly lit buildings. The IS helps me hand hold down to about 1/30th now, where without it I couldn't go much below 1/60th and still get good 8x10 quality images.

So if you are thinking that the IS will help with action in low light, it won't.

Mike

You can always get the non-IS version and add a good monopod to it - that way you'll be able to shoot at speeds as low as 1/60s at 200mm end. Of course it's not so convenient as having IS, but the $$$ difference is definitely there ...
Just one more thing - IS isn't needed when shooting fast moving action, as the shutter speeds have to stay high anyway (at least 1/250s I guess). At speeds that you'll need the IS (1/100, 1/60 etc) the fast moving subject will be blurry because of its motion.

After shooting bodybuilding shows in dark theatres, and recently a diving event in a large pool with TV lights which still required ISO1600, I would say "crank up the ISO, and make sure the image is properly exposed, or slightly to the right".

The 10D and 200D have amazingly low noise at high ISO's.
If your picture is slightly dark though, and you have to compensate later with software (raw or jpg), you are going to get alot of noise.

I NEVER use/need to use Noise Ninja (the best NR software imho) at ISO100-800. Even at ISO1600 I find I dont need it unless the image was underexposed slightly.

Thes bodybuilding shots were all at ISO400 and ISO800 with no noise reduction:
http://www.sharpnsmart​.com/mabba2004/index.h​tm

Here is a 100% crop of one of the ISO800 shots, no noise reduction:
http://www.sharpnsmart​.com/mabba2004/iso800.​jpg

These diving shots were all at ISO1600, but I made sure to properly expose, or slightly over expose.

Here is a 100% crop with no noise reduction.

When shooting the bb shows, even though I am using a f1.8 lens, I often tend to shoot at f2.8 and increase the iso because at f1.8 the dof is so small, subjects tend to be soft unless they are dead center of focus.
This is just my experience.

PS. The 85mm f1.8 is an awesome lens for low light.

I didnt realize the non IS version was so much less, for some reason i thought it was only a 100 or 2.

Just wondering, it doenst matter all that much, but does the non IS version also have an 8 bladed appature?

I got a 10D this winter so I haven't taken football pictures with it. However I got excellent football pictures with my EOS 3, 200/2.8L and a 550ex. Yes, the 550 is useful for football pictures. Use it to fill in. Personally, if it's night, I set the camera to M, aperture to 2.8, and adjust the shutter speed as needed, letting the 550 fill in. This fall, I will shoot raw in order to best deal with exposure problems that are bound to occur.

Now, the 10D will turn my 200 into a 300mm. I haven't decided whether I will like that or whether I will prefer my 100/2.0 which the 10D will make a 160mm.

Focusing on football action at night is going to be more of a problem for the 10D than it was for the EOS 3, I bet. In order to help the camera focus, I am going to want as much aperture as I can get.

for fast sports action, yes the IS version will not help much, but you can also reduce the blur effect on your subject by following the motion with your camera/lens to "immobilize"your subject relatively to the seen which then will come out blurry. depends on what your needs are (known technique but just a reminder).
1.6 factor in 10D will not make anything you shoort closer. with 200mm for instance, it'll still be 200mm, jsut cropped to give an image width of 320mm. you loose some sides of your image compared to full frame thet's it.
I did some shots to compare with Elan IIe and 10D and results jsut comfirmed what I thought.
regards
Khalid

True. That's what I meant. I don't know whether I will prefer the angle of view of a 300mm (the EF200/2.8L's angle of view is actually about 190mm) lens or of a 160mm lens.