Looking for opinions re: Little League and HS Baseball

I will be shooting a lot of Little League and HS Baseball this spring, and have budgeted about $800 to either improve my gear or add a lens. Currently, my camera is a 30D gripped, and my lens choices are Sigma 100-300mm f/4, Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon 24mm f/2.8. I'm considering either selling my 30D and buying a used 1DmkII for the higher fps and faster AF, or keeping my 30D and buying a used 70-200mm f/2.8 for better low-light shooting. Which do you think would be the wiser choice? Any 3rd options I should consider?
Joe

What time are games are? And can you shoot from the field? How does your 100-300mm f4 owrk on your 30d?

If day games, then f4 should be good. 300mm gives nice range on crop body. But the AF of 1 series is lot better IMHO.

HS games will be almost all day-time. Little League will be both day and night, but the field is well-lit, as far as Little League fields go. Due to a fortunate relationship I have with one of the VP's of the league, I will have field access. HS will likely be shot from the stands and field perimeter.

Opinions will vary but I would say get the 70-200 with a 1.4x tele(Tamron SP). Since most of the games are in the day, you would have the just about all of the reach of the 300 at the same f stop. The 2.8 will help out at night and most of the action will be happening in the infield.

tmalone893 wrote in post #7164466
Opinions will vary but I would say get the 70-200 with a 1.4x tele(Tamron SP). Since most of the games are in the day, you would have the just about all of the reach of the 300 at the same f stop. The 2.8 will help out at night and most of the action will be happening in the infield.

The 70-200mm + 1.4 TC would nearly duplicate my Sigma 100-300mm, but would not focus as fast, and would likely be slightly softer. That Sigma is one fast, sharp lens!

I'm trying to decide whether having f/2.8 at my disposal would be more important than having the much improved AF of the 1D series.

tagger123 wrote in post #7164601
I'm trying to decide whether having f/2.8 at my disposal would be more important than having the much improved AF of the 1D series.

Tough choice. It depends on how many games at night you want to shoot. For night time you need f2.8 and good high ISO camera.

So if you mainly shooting during the day, I would go with 1dmk2. No questions.

Biggest improvent I saw in my shots was when upgrading from 30d to 1dmk2. 30d AF was junk IMHO compared to 1dmk2.

tagger123 wrote in post #7164601
The 70-200mm + 1.4 TC would nearly duplicate my Sigma 100-300mm, but would not focus as fast, and would likely be slightly softer. That Sigma is one fast, sharp lens!

I'm trying to decide whether having f/2.8 at my disposal would be more important than having the much improved AF of the 1D series.

Sorry, didn't realize that you already had the Sigma. I thought that you were considering it as well. Sell the Sig and get the 2.8, along with the tele. I can't say that the pictures are soft using the 1.4x, 2x yes, but F4 during the day would be about right.

tmalone893 wrote in post #7170295
Sell the Sig and get the 2.8, along with the tele.

I guess this falls under "3rd options" -- Buy the 1DmkII, sell the Sigma and buy the 70-200mm 2.8 with 1.4x TC. That would probably put me over budget by the cost of the TC. But aside from budget, would the 70-200mm + TC be a better option than the Sigma for shooting baseball? With the TC added, the Canon and Sigma would cover similar focal ranges and would both bottom out at f4, but Sigma will be slightly sharper and faster to AF. The 70-200mm is definitely more versatile across different shooting situations, but my immediate priority is baseball. Hmmm...

tagger123 wrote in post #7171509
I guess this falls under "3rd options" -- Buy the 1DmkII, sell the Sigma and buy the 70-200mm 2.8 with 1.4x TC. That would probably put me over budget by the cost of the TC. But aside from budget, would the 70-200mm + TC be a better option than the Sigma for shooting baseball? With the TC added, the Canon and Sigma would cover similar focal ranges and would both bottom out at f4, but Sigma will be slightly sharper and faster to AF. The 70-200mm is definitely more versatile across different shooting situations, but my immediate priority is baseball. Hmmm...

Then keep the Sigma.

I've shot a lot of Little League/Pony baseball, and I miss shots because my 40D doesn't autofocus fast enough, even in full daylight. I wouldn't think the 30D is better at AF, so my vote is for the 1DmkII. Pair it with the Sigma and you should be pretty stoked.