1DmkII or 70-200mm for Baseball

I'm currently using a 30D w/ grip and a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 for Little League and HS baseball. I've got a budget of about $800, and I'm considering either upgrading my 30D to the 1DmkII for higher fps and faster AF, or buying a used 70-200mm f/2.8 for better low-light performance and background separation. Which do you choose?

At the prices used 1D MK II cameras are going for, get that first.

The lens you have is already going to work very well for what you are wanting to shoot. One rule of thumb is shoot tight and crop tighter. Even at F/4 your separation of subject to background is going to be pretty good if you don't shoot loose.

You will notice a huge difference in quality when you make the upgrade from the 30D to the 1D MK II.

After that considering getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 to add along side of the Sigma for doing night time baseball.

Ross

Thanks Ross! That was my first instinct.

I've been shooting youth baseball with a 70-200 f2.8L with good results using a 400D. Even indoors I can get acceptable results with the lens wide open. I would opt for the lens.

I agree that your lens will be good for baseball just because reach is very important in baseball and the 70-200 just doesn't have much of it. However, I disagree that your quality of photos will increase by much at all. Perhaps you will get a few more keepers due to the excellent AF and tracking, but that's really all I see happening. I personally cannot distinguish between photos taken with my 1D2 and 30D. Regardless, I think the 1D2 will be the better of your two options here.

PS. Let me know where you can find a 1D2 for $800...

Tough question, but I think I'd go for the glass. Baseball, is kind of a different animal when it comes to shooting because it's kind of stationary. I was shooting baseball with my 20D a few years ago and would have given my left arm for a faster lens since all I had was an F4. I was shooting in the late afternoons close to dusk. You really can't go wrong with what ever you decide. Good luck,


Ron

I'd go for the glass too, as I did a year ago. I have the 70-200 f2.8L IS and its just a FANTASTIC lens. I have a 40D so I don't really have any gripes at all with my camera body.

baseball+fps doesn't fit. you cant get ball on bet by spraying. 100-400 is much better for baseball as well

glass gets the a** the body doesnt go for the glass!!!

You have the 100-300 already. It is more useful for baseball. Get the body because you have the glass, unless you are shooting night games.

Your blur will actually likely do better with the 100-300 since you'll fill the frame more than you would with the 70-200. The 70-200 is a nice lens, but you already have a lens to cover what you need (if its in daylight).

And yes, you can use a 1.4 TC, but you'll lose AF speed and still have a shorter FL.

grego wrote in post #7307700
You have the 100-300 already. It is more useful for baseball. Get the body because you have the glass, unless you are shooting night games.

Your blur will actually likely do better with the 100-300 since you'll fill the frame more than you would with the 70-200. The 70-200 is a nice lens, but you already have a lens to cover what you need (if its in daylight).

And yes, you can use a 1.4 TC, but you'll lose AF speed and still have a shorter FL.

+1

Come on people...We know that the 70-200 is a great lens, but you shouldn't recommend it just because of that. It doesn't fit his needs. 200mm is not long enough for baseball and he already has 300mm. Don't be ignorant.

I don't know about folks using 70-200mm for baseball but here is 500mm f4 IS on 1dmk2 and I had to crop a bit 4:3 out of 2:3 format.

Bobby,

Great shots!!!!!

I would go with the body. I upgraded from a 20d to a MarkIIn and love it. But you could always get more distance if you get a extender but will loose some stops.

I would opt for the body, im sure you will get better results from the 1d and sigma combo than the 30d canon combo.