Jerry Coupe Loc: Kent, WA

There is a Canon 'focused' web site, photographers on the net or google POTN. They have a very good 'For Sale" classified section and there are frequently 5D Mk IIIs and 1Dx plus older 1D's listed for sale. Also a few 5D Mk IVs showing up as well. I have sold items on this site and had good experiences.

I would be more comfortable buying a 1Dx on POTN versus Ebay as the sellers are generally dedicated Canon users.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

I shoot sports too. I have the 5D MIII, 7D MII and usually mount my Canon 70 - 200 f/2.8 on the 7d MII. I can crop to get closer. In daylight, I can mount my Canon 2x III on the 70 - 200. I use various cases of the Auto Focus system in both cameras. I'm not a pro. I do find some excellent results. I've attached the 7D MII AF guide. It has comprehensive data for the AF system, not found in the 7D MII manual.
Mark

Attached file:
(Download)

tjjm Loc: Saint Louis, Mo.

The image you currently achieve at 200 on the 7d is the same size as a 320 on the 5diii. I use the 7d markii with the 100-400 canon lense for birding, birds in flight. Am very pleased with the way they function.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If 200mm on an APS-C crop sensor camera "isn't enough", then 300mm on a full frame camera is going to be even worse (200mm on your 7DII is equivalent to 320mm on full frame).

You say you do 99% hockey and baseball. Unless you have really deep pockets for a 1DX II, 200-400/4L 1.4X or 400mm f/2.8, a really sturdy tripod and a golf cart and/or a couple assistants to help you lug around a ton of gear, don't get a full frame camera. For sports, crop sensors rule! They allow you to use much smaller, lighter and more affordable lenses!

I might recommend a better 70-200mm f/2.8, such as the Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM "II".... which is one of the best made by anyone. Reportedly it works well with a high quality 1.4X, too. Alternatively, when I need more reach in lower light conditions, I often use a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM on a second camera.

Or, get the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport and use it on your 7DII. For baseball you will probably want a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter to use with it. That's a relatively big, heavy lens, though (7.5 lb.!) So for anything longer than a few minutes of hand held shooting, you will probably want a good solid tripod with a gimbal head... or at least a sturdy monopod.

The Canon EF 100-400L IS USM is excellent, too... would be great for baseball in the daytime or under really bright lights. At about 3.5 lb. it's about 1/2 to 1 lb. heavier than the typical 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4 prime. That's still manageable for hand holding for quite a while, though I do put it on a tripod during longer shooting sessions. But as an f/4.5 lens at 100mm and an f/5.6 lens beyond 300mm, the 100-400mm not ideal for indoor sports. That's when I usually switch to a 300/4 (hand held and mobile) or 300/2.8 (with a tripod and gimbal head, not very mobile... FYI, the Sigma 120-300mm is even bigger and heavier.)

Sometimes in particularly challenging light conditions I use 50/1.4 USM, 85/1.8 and 135/2 prime lenses.... 1 to 2 stops faster than any zoom and all with USM focus drive, which is important for sports action. Not to mention, they're all a lot smaller and lighter than the zooms.

So...

1. I don't think the 5DIII (or even the IV) would do you any good at all. Stick with your 7DII.... it's a better sports-specific camera. And maybe get a second one to be able to switch back and forth between a couple different lenses (7DII: $1500. BG-E16 $210. Add'l LP-E6N: $50... a little under $1800 total). In addition to allowing you to use more moderate size/weight/cost lenses, 7DII also have a more high performance/sports-oriented AF system than any of the 5D-series (great cameras, IMO.... just not ideal for sports). The 7DII uses a discrete chip to drive the AF, much like the 1D-series models do. This gives it an edge for rapid focus acquisition and better tracking of fast moving subjects. 7DII also has dual processors to handle the images at a 10 frame per second continuous shooting rate. That's another thing it inherited from 1D-series. 5DS/5DS-R use dual processors to handle their huge 50MP image files (albeit at a more sedentary pace).... but other 5D-series don't. And no 5D-series model uses a discrete chip for AF (in fact, aside from 7D-series and 1D-series models... no other Canon do... they all share focusing duties through the image processors).

2. Upgrade from the Tamron (not Tameron) lens to the top-of-the-line Canon 70-200mm. That will cost you a little under $2000. I have not use the Tamron, but suspect the performance and IQ of the Canon 70-200 II will get a "Wow!" out of you. (If in doubt, maybe rent it and try it first?)

3. Consider a 300/4 prime (more mobile and around $1350) or the Sigma 120-300/2.8 zoom (less mobile and around $3500). Especially for baseball, with either of those, you also may want a quality 1.4X like the Canon "III" ($450) or "II" ($250 used) or the Kenko Teleplus MC-4 DGX for $100. (Note: Canon also offers the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM at a reasonable cost. It's a sharp, fast focusing lens. However it doesn't have IS like the 300/4L does... and using the 300mm with a 1.4X TC gives you two very useful focal lengths, rather than just one.)

4. Consider the Canon EF 100-400mm II, though I think you'll find it mostly an outdoor/daytime lens. Cost is a little over $2000. It uses fluorite and image quality is top notch. It also can be used with a 1.4X on 7DII (though you will be limited to using the center AF point only). The guys at Lensrentals.com, who have the good fortune to have access to and use multiple copies of virtually every lens made, love to take things apart to see what's inside. When they did a teardown of the 100-400 II they called it "the best built zoom lens we've ever seen". High praise! But I suspect they haven't done a teardown of the $11,000 Canon EF 200-400/4L 1.4X yet... at around 8 lb., that zoom might be even more impressive.

5a. Sigma has just recently introduced a competing 100-400mm for far lower cost. At under $900 it's a little smaller, but not any lighter weight. I don't like that it doesn't include a tripod mounting ring and doesn't even have a provision to optionally add one. The Canon comes with a tripod ring (though its foot leaves something to be desired... thankfully there are some third party replacements that work great). While the Sigma might often be used hand held, I want the option to use the lens on a monopod or tripod and it would balance very poorly using the socket on the base of the camera. So, as far as I'm concerned, the lack of a tripod ring or even the option to fit one rules out the Sigma 100-400.

5b. However, Tamron has also announced a new 100-400mm, which is expected to sell for about the same as the Sigma and does have option of fitting a tripod ring (sold separately, apparently). It's not yet in stores and there's limited information about the Tamron 100-400mm... I'd like to know how much the optional tripod ring will cost... as well as its image quality, AF performance, stabilization effectiveness and build quality/sealing. The Sigma has been out for a while and there are some fairly extensive reviews of it online. It's so new, there isn't yet the same info avail. for the Tamron.

Note that both the Sigma and Tamron are a little slower, f/6.3 lenses at the long end of their range (versus f/5.6 with the Canon.... not too big a deal). The Tamron and Sigma lenses also don't use fluorite, the way the Canon 100-400mm does. In case you don't know, fluorite is an ideal lens element material for telephotos, greatly reducing chromatic aberrations and giving superb resolution. It's also lighter weight than optical glass. But it's rare in natural form to find in large enough sizes for lens elements and rather fragile/difficult to shape into elements.... significantly driving up the cost of using it. However, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Canon was a pioneer developing means of growing their own fluorite crystals and working with it. A lot of their telephotos have used it, ever since. In fact, the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and both the 70-200mm f/4 versions use it... as do the 200/2L and every other Canon lens 300mm or longer, except for the 300/4L and 400/5.6L. Just this year Nikon has also reconfigured many of their telephotos to use fluorite... but they have also jacked up the prices for their "FL" lenses. Canon's fluorite lenses have been around for many years and "settled" to far more reasonable prices. You can buy a Canon lens with fluorite for as little as $600 and there are three others selling for under $2100. The least expensive Nikon FL lens costs $2700 (70-200/2.8)... and most of them are $10,000 or more. AFAIK, no other camera lens manufacturer is using fluorite right now, although most have made one or a few models using it in the past.

Hope this helps with your shopping. It's always fun to help spend other peoples' money!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

ISO 16000 with Canon 7D Mark II...



Above was a test shot RAW (lens happened to be 100-400 II), converted via Lightroom 6 using default noise reduction settings.

Yes, there's noise if you look at the image ridiculously large. But it's pretty well controlled and very manageable in post-processing. I use ISO 5000 and 6400 a lot with my 7DIIs... and sell prints as large as 16x20 from them. Less frequently, but if needed I'll even use 8000, 12800 or 16000, though I know the images will typically need more work in post-processing.

Besides shooting RAW, I also recommend being careful to avoid under-exposure. If you have to boost the image brightness in post-processing, that will greatly amplify any noise. Also apply noise reduction while still in 16 bit mode and before down-sizing the image at all (I use Imagenomic Noiseware plug-in with Photoshop, but there are a number of good NR programs, either free standing or plug-ins). And especially don't do any sharpening until after NR has been completed.

Oh, and don't evaluate your image quality at ridiculously high magnifications that are meaningless when it comes to the finished product. It's fine to use 100%, 200% or even higher to retouch images... But that's way bigger than the image will be used in the end. 100% of a 20MP image is close to a three foot by five foot print size, on the typical computer monitor. Unless you actually plan to print that big and then view the print as close as you view your computer monitor... back off! Use 25 or 33% to evaluate image sharpness, focus accuracy... and noise! Those magnifications are much closer to the size of the vast majority of prints and still larger than many uses (such as Internet sizes and resolutions).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

7DII with 100-400mm II lens (low resolution "proof" quality images with only very light editing)....

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

Sorry to have upset you with my comments. For you, I will "back off!"
But for my high school football images I have to be able to blow pictures up to put on 6'X3' banners. So I want the sharpest, least noisy pictures I can get. Nobody likes to see a grainy image of their son all blown up. I don't have the time to do major retouches on the 100's of photos I take each week. I like to do the best work I can. I am just a volunteer and do not receive any compensation for the many hours of work I put in. Thanks.