7D2 or 120-300 f/2.8 Sport?

[Prodo123]

Hello,

I've been working with my kit for a while, and it has served me well for shooting most events. However, even with my 5D3, 550D and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I've found that it comes short when shooting big field sports such as soccer and football, especially as it gets darker. So I'm conflicted between choosing the 7D2 or Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport.

So I'm thinking: 7D2 is half the cost of the Sigma. Paired with the 70-200, it has the same focal length range. It has much better ISO noise than the 550D, and only 1 stop's worth worse than the 5D3. It also has 10 fps burst and that wonderful AF system which are good for sports.

Or I could get the 120-300 Sport from Sigma. It can be mounted on my crop body (550D) for a huge 192-480mm f/2.8 range. The obvious downside to this is that the lens would be mounted on a 550D for now. However, the Sigma has a f/2.8 aperture which mitigates some of the 550D's bad lowlight performance. It also costs twice as much as the 7D2.

Eventually I'll try to work to get both of them, but which should I go for first?

 

[simonsi]

I shoot hockey and lacrosse with Nikon gear but I use a D300s crop body and a Nikon 70-200/2.8 with the option of a Nikon 1.7TC. That combo gives a 120-340mm/4.8 which works well even under floodlights. The Nikon 1.7TC has no noticeable IQ drop vs the naked 70-200/2.8 so on that basis I'd investigate the option of a TC on your 70-200 and the 7D2 as a far more cost effective and flexible option than the Sigma.

That Nikon lens and TC combo is well-known for being a near-zero IQ loss, not all TC/lens combos are so best to test...

 

[Prodo123]

I shoot hockey and lacrosse with Nikon gear but I use a D300s crop body and a Nikon 70-200/2.8 with the option of a Nikon 1.7TC. That combo gives a 120-340mm/4.8 which works well even under floodlights. The Nikon 1.7TC has no noticeable IQ drop vs the naked 70-200/2.8 so on that basis I'd investigate the option of a TC on your 70-200 and the 7D2 as a far more cost effective and flexible option than the Sigma.

That Nikon lens and TC combo is well-known for being a near-zero IQ loss, not all TC/lens combos are so best to test...

Teleconverters are not an option because I need as much light as I can get. Outdoor nighttime games need the 2.8 or bigger, but I can't afford a big white prime!

 

[simonsi]

Whatever. I'm talking from experience with a body that won't be as good at high ISO as your proposal, hockey and lacrosse are outdoor in poor light/floodlights (in full darkness), so should be pretty comparable. Buy both - it seems you don't want any advice...

 

[ChrisA]

Whatever. I'm talking from experience with a body that won't be as good at high ISO as your proposal, hockey and lacrosse are outdoor in poor light/floodlights (in full darkness), so should be pretty comparable. Buy both - it seems you don't want any advice...

Assuming what people THINK they need. I used to shoot this kind of subject using film (ISO 400) with with a 180mm prime and sometimes a TC. Look at any sports mag. from the 70's and it was all shot with film, 36 exposures per roll.

What you do is prefocus and pan and then trip the shutter at the right time. Panning mostly takes care of the motion blur.

You current equipment is better then what pros where using a while back.

 

[shaunp]

Hello,

I've been working with my kit for a while, and it has served me well for shooting most events. However, even with my 5D3, 550D and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I've found that it comes short when shooting big field sports such as soccer and football, especially as it gets darker. So I'm conflicted between choosing the 7D2 or Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport.

So I'm thinking: 7D2 is half the cost of the Sigma. Paired with the 70-200, it has the same focal length range. It has much better ISO noise than the 550D, and only 1 stop's worth worse than the 5D3. It also has 10 fps burst and that wonderful AF system which are good for sports.

Or I could get the 120-300 Sport from Sigma. It can be mounted on my crop body (550D) for a huge 192-480mm f/2.8 range. The obvious downside to this is that the lens would be mounted on a 550D for now. However, the Sigma has a f/2.8 aperture which mitigates some of the 550D's bad lowlight performance. It also costs twice as much as the 7D2.

Eventually I'll try to work to get both of them, but which should I go for first?

Interesting problem. Heres's an idea for you. Get a used 7D, the image quality isn't massively better than the 550D but it has much better AF, and it's a crop body which is what you are really needing for the extra reach. These bodies are also cheap second-hand. You could then try a 1.4 converter on the 70-200 and you won't loose much in IQ, but you will gain a lot of focal length for the money. You can get the better AF and some extra reach. You won't get AF, reach and vastly improved ISO though without spending a ton of cash and if you aren't earning money from it you have to question whether or not it is worth the investment.

 

[simonsi]

Assuming what people THINK they need. I used to shoot this kind of subject using film (ISO 400) with with a 180mm prime and sometimes a TC. Look at any sports mag. from the 70's and it was all shot with film, 36 exposures per roll.

What you do is prefocus and pan and then trip the shutter at the right time. Panning mostly takes care of the motion blur.

You current equipment is better then what pros where using a while back.

I know, I date from film, did you mean to quote the OP?

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media_LLC]

get a 7D2 and a 55-250mm stm lens $200a new 50mm F 1.8 stm lens and 24-105mm F4 lens are your be set for everything and 32-64 class 10 sandisk card

 

[Prodo123]

Whatever. I'm talking from experience with a body that won't be as good at high ISO as your proposal, hockey and lacrosse are outdoor in poor light/floodlights (in full darkness), so should be pretty comparable. Buy both - it seems you don't want any advice...

I also have experience with the D300s/70-200 f/2.8 combo, and as you said it's comparable to my current setup.

However, I'm already shooting at ISO 3200 at f/2.8. You can only barely make out the facial features, and even with that I have to bump everything up 2/3 stop in post to make printing guidelines. I don't really get to choose how much IQ I want: half my keepers were thrown out by my editors because of unacceptable amounts of noise. If I could I would be considering TCs right now. (As you can tell I shoot for a publication)

I'm trying to get both body and lens. I'd like your opinion on which to get first.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I also have experience with the D300s/70-200 f/2.8 combo, and as you said it's comparable to my current setup.

However, I'm already shooting at ISO 3200 at f/2.8. You can only barely make out the facial features, and even with that I have to bump everything up 2/3 stop in post to make printing guidelines. I don't really get to choose how much IQ I want: half my keepers were thrown out by my editors because of unacceptable amounts of noise. If I could I would be considering TCs right now. (As you can tell I shoot for a publication)

I'm trying to get both body and lens. I'd like your opinion on which to get first.

Bodies come and go, where as Glass lasts a lifetime. But as I said elsewhere today if noise is your issue, take a look at DXO Optics. The noise reduction element of their software is great.

 

[simonsi]

I also have experience with the D300s/70-200 f/2.8 combo, and as you said it's comparable to my current setup.

However, I'm already shooting at ISO 3200 at f/2.8. You can only barely make out the facial features, and even with that I have to bump everything up 2/3 stop in post to make printing guidelines. I don't really get to choose how much IQ I want: half my keepers were thrown out by my editors because of unacceptable amounts of noise. If I could I would be considering TCs right now. (As you can tell I shoot for a publication)

I'm trying to get both body and lens. I'd like your opinion on which to get first.

Under floodlights I usually hit around ISO2000-2500 (at 2.8 and around 1/300), with some at 3200. I find a combination of the in-camera Hi-ISO NR and processing in Capture One deals with the D300s RAW noise very effectively. I used to think the in-camera Hi-ISO NR only was for jpegs but it certainly does make a difference on the RAW files too - it might be worth trialling some different RAW converters to see if you can get a better result, that technology has progressed significantly in recent years.

One point to make though is if your biggest problem is noise then the Sigma won't help with that, same exposure from the same 2.8 will give the same noise on the same body. If noise is your issue then you will need to address that in the body and PP.

Night-time sports is still on the technical edge, if you are footing the bill for your gear I'd stay flexible before investing that $$$ in that particular Sigma lens and go for the 7D2 (if thats your only option...). Alternatively rent both items and see which gives the best incremental result. All IMHO

 

[Prodo123]

Under floodlights I usually hit around ISO2000-2500 (at 2.8 and around 1/300), with some at 3200. I find a combination of the in-camera Hi-ISO NR and processing in Capture One deals with the D300s RAW noise very effectively. I used to think the in-camera Hi-ISO NR only was for jpegs but it certainly does make a difference on the RAW files too - it might be worth trialling some different RAW converters to see if you can get a better result, that technology has progressed significantly in recent years.

One point to make though is if your biggest problem is noise then the Sigma won't help with that, same exposure from the same 2.8 will give the same noise on the same body. If noise is your issue then you will need to address that in the body and PP.

Night-time sports is still on the technical edge, if you are footing the bill for your gear I'd stay flexible before investing that $$$ in that particular Sigma lens and go for the 7D2 (if thats your only option...). Alternatively rent both items and see which gives the best incremental result. All IMHO

The benefit of the Sigma comes from the fact that a longer focal length will reduce the amount of cropping and therefore result in less visible noise. As shaunp pointed out, I am also considering the 70D (over the 7D) but I'm not sure if it offers enough lowlight performance.

 

[simonsi]

The benefit of the Sigma comes from the fact that a longer focal length will reduce the amount of cropping and therefore result in less visible noise. As shaunp pointed out, I am also considering the 70D (over the 7D) but I'm not sure if it offers enough lowlight performance.

Sure - are you shooting from the sideline or stands?

 

[shaunp]

I also have experience with the D300s/70-200 f/2.8 combo, and as you said it's comparable to my current setup.

However, I'm already shooting at ISO 3200 at f/2.8. You can only barely make out the facial features, and even with that I have to bump everything up 2/3 stop in post to make printing guidelines. I don't really get to choose how much IQ I want: half my keepers were thrown out by my editors because of unacceptable amounts of noise. If I could I would be considering TCs right now. (As you can tell I shoot for a publication)

I'm trying to get both body and lens. I'd like your opinion on which to get first.

From what I'm reading the 7D2 isn't a massive improvement on the 7D when it comes to noise. I have a 7D and I try to keep below ISO 800, and occasionally go to 1600. Beyond this the images are useless. Here's another idea for you, a used 1D IV. They are about the price of a new 7D2, but look quite good with regards to ISO performance and AF (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx). Reading this review I'm thinking of getting one myself now.