# Should I get a 5D mk iii with a 100-400 lens or not? (for football)



## Mashburn (Apr 13, 2015)

I currently have a 70D with a 70-200 F/2.8 lens ii. I am able to do ISO 1600-3200, 1/500, f/2.8 at night football games. It has some noise in it. but it is enough to bother me, plus I would like to shot at faster speeds.

I am thinking of buying a full frame within my budget. and the 5D mk iii is the one I am currently looking at. but I know with it being full frame I would be missing out on the 1.6 crop of zooming. So what do you think of pairing it with a canon 100-400mm ii F/4.5-5.3? 

- what ISO can you go to before you see noise without cropping on a 5d mk iii?
- with moving up 2 F stops, how bad would that take off on the speed?

And I do not want to get prime lenses for 2 reasons. how much it cost and because I hate being set at a fixed position.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 13, 2015)

2 f stops slower lens means 2 stops slower speed at same iso. So f2.8 at iso 3200 would need iso 12800 if at f5.6, or iso 6400 at f4


----------



## syaudi (Apr 13, 2015)

as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.

but a 7D or 7DII might better suit your purposes.


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 13, 2015)

syaudi said:


> as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.
> 
> but a 7D or 7DII might better suit your purposes.


 Yeah that is what I am thinking to just stay with what I have.


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 13, 2015)

jaomul said:


> 2 f stops slower lens means 2 stops slower speed at same iso. So f2.8 at iso 3200 would need iso 12800 if at f5.6, or iso 6400 at f4


Thank you that was very informative for me. I was wondering what it would be. 

So with me shooting. 3200, F2.8 1/500. I would have to shot at 12,800, f5.6, 1/500 just to pull off the same shot. and I lose the zoom from having a crop.  

and if I want to take my shutter speed up to 1/1000 from 1/500, I would have to bring the ISO 12,800 to 25,600....... <<<<<------ So now I wonder how high the ISO would go before the noise starts being noticeable on the 5d mark iii.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 13, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> syaudi said:
> 
> 
> > as someone with a 5DMIII and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.3L...hell yeah.
> ...



While the 7D may have more fps than the 70D, I don't think it would be a better choice. Now the 7D mk II, on the other hand, I think would be a good alternative. I'm still waiting to see how it and the new 100-400mm are going to do for high school football. (I have a friend that has this combination).


----------



## Overread (Apr 13, 2015)

You could consider a 5DMIII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. That replicates a rough similar range coverage whilst keeping the zoom feature in the lens. So you don't lose on apertures what you gain in ISO. The only downside is that the 120-300mm is a lot heavier so you might want a monopod to go with it to take the strain off your arms a bit. 

A 70-200mm f2.8 can be used all day without much trouble - 120-300mm is a lot more strain. 

Another option is you could consider a combo - 5DMIII with a 300mm f2.8. You gain in prime goodness, but lose in weight (though lighter than the sigma zoom) and in the lack of zoom.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 13, 2015)

having used both of those lenses on a 7D and a 5DII to shoot high school football, I can tell you the 70D and 70-200 f/2.8 will outshoot the 100-400 3.5-5.6 on a 5DIII any day of the week, and it won't even be particularly close.  Especially since the whole point of the 100-400 will be so that you can shoot at the tele end, where it's at 5.6.


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 13, 2015)

ronlane said:


> Mashburn said:
> 
> 
> > syaudi said:
> ...







 go to 4:20 seconds into the video. this of course is not sports. but you can see at 3200 70D is basically the same for a 7D mk ii at 6400. very very impressed with that.  SO I am now thinking of going that route of trying to sell my 70D.


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 13, 2015)

Overread said:


> You could consider a 5DMIII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. That replicates a rough similar range coverage whilst keeping the zoom feature in the lens. So you don't lose on apertures what you gain in ISO. The only downside is that the 120-300mm is a lot heavier so you might want a monopod to go with it to take the strain off your arms a bit.
> 
> A 70-200mm f2.8 can be used all day without much trouble - 120-300mm is a lot more strain.
> 
> Another option is you could consider a combo - 5DMIII with a 300mm f2.8. You gain in prime goodness, but lose in weight (though lighter than the sigma zoom) and in the lack of zoom.


hmmmm now that is an idea. because I was about to call it a day. and start looking at selling my 70D for a 7D mk ii.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 13, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > You could consider a 5DMIII and a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS. That replicates a rough similar range coverage whilst keeping the zoom feature in the lens. So you don't lose on apertures what you gain in ISO. The only downside is that the 120-300mm is a lot heavier so you might want a monopod to go with it to take the strain off your arms a bit.
> ...


Make sure you try out the 120-300 before buying. Going from a speed demon like the 70-200 L to it will be an adjustment focus speed wise.


----------



## Overread (Apr 13, 2015)

That's a good point - the 120-300mm f2.8 is not as fast at focusing as the 70-200mm. Now I will say that its by no means slow- its just not as lightning fast - and certainly has the speed for action work. I think you will be hard pressed to the same kind of focal length coverage any other way - the only other way is you could consider a combination - of primes and zooms or just two primes on two bodies.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 13, 2015)

Overread said:


> That's a good point - the 120-300mm f2.8 is not as fast at focusing as the 70-200mm. Now I will say that its by no means slow- its just not as lightning fast - and certainly has the speed for action work. I think you will be hard pressed to the same kind of focal length coverage any other way - the only other way is you could consider a combination - of primes and zooms or just two primes on two bodies.


Totally agree. Great lens and certainly "fast enough" but some people get addicted to speed man.


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 15, 2015)

yes, for night football games you will need the 70-200 2.8 --- and a full frame certainly helps


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 15, 2015)

beagle100 said:


> yes, for night football games you will need the 70-200 2.8 --- and a full frame certainly helps


eh, I have mixed feelings when it comes to full frame v APS-C for football with the 70-200 f/2.8  full frame 200mm is kind of short for a lot of football, but otoh, Canon's APS-C cameras are pretty mediocre/bad in low light.  When I was doing a ton of football, my go to setup was a 300mm f/2.8 on 5DII and a 70-200 f/2.8 on a 7D.  A lot to lug around, but hard to beat that full frame 300mm for football when you had time to pre-frame a shot, while the 70-200 on the 7D was good for quick shooting plays as they happened.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2015)

The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?


I took that to be what the 'ii' was indicating.


----------



## BillM (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football.


----------



## Overread (Apr 15, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?



Aye the new one - which from what I've seen is a fantastic lens. The issue wasn't really with sharpness nor clarity its the aperture loss for night-sports. It's an improved lens, but ist still not an f2.8. 



BillM said:


> I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football



Aye like I said its not slow - its just not "as" fast as the lens the OP is used to using


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 15, 2015)

BillM said:


> I don't consider the Sigma 120-300 Sport slow to focus at all. I love shooting it for night football.


It's not slow by any means.  I am saying though that if you're used to focusing with the Canon 70-200  f/2.8 IS II L, you will absolutely notice a difference in focusing speed.  Whether the difference between the Canon and the Sigma's focusing speed matters to you or not is probably mostly a function of how accustomed you are to the way the Canon focuses.  If youve never used the Canon, I can't see it being an issue, if you've gotten used to the luxury of how fast the Canon focuses, you may find it irksome taking a "step down" in focusing speed.


----------



## BillM (Apr 15, 2015)

Well I'll leave you Canon folk to discuss.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 16, 2015)

The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 16, 2015)

gsgary said:


> The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better




LOL !

the "old dog" 100-400 V1 on a 60D


----------



## gsgary (Apr 16, 2015)

beagle100 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > The older 100-400 was a dog for shooting sport not sure if the new one is better
> ...


One lucky shot but look how clear the background is, its ok for the odd game


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 16, 2015)

gsgary said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



LOL !

I get hundreds of those "lucky" shots with the 100-400 in a game - lacrosse, soccer, etc,


----------



## gsgary (Apr 16, 2015)

beagle100 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > beagle100 said:
> ...


With background so clear I wouldn't want them but I'm comparing them to what I used to get with my 300f2.8L


----------



## Overread (Apr 16, 2015)

The biggest problem the 100-400mm has for sports is that its aperture range is restrictive. It's fine in good light, but if you want to do evening, night or just really dull weather sports then you really start wanting that f2.8 aperture. It makes the difference of two  whole stops at the 400mm end and that is make or break sometimes in sports - plus anything that lets you keep your ISO that bit lower is a good thing instead of always pushing the limits of the camera.


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 17, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?


hahahaha yes I was. the version one has to many issues. and that water gun pump action, seriously? good ridance that was a horrible idea. (side note: it is not something you want to have around when taking pictures of the womens football lingire league.)


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 17, 2015)

Overread said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The OP is talking about "the NEW" Canon 100-400mm...right? Not the ancient trombone aka slide-zoom, right?
> ...



I shot the sigma 150-600 on a nikon. and of course we know canon is the better one for sports and AI servo. so anyhow, I did love it "then". but then when I finally got to use the 70-200 canon I loved it more. when a player is coming at you in a open field, both are good. but when a line opens a hole and a running back comes through showing his head, the 70-200 will 49 out of 50 times hit it; while the sigma will miss it until his whole body is in the hole a lot. 

my post is not knocking down the sigma. just saying the edge goes to 70-200 canon.


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 17, 2015)

UPDATE: I purchased the Canon 7D mk ii. I went yesterday to try it out and really wanted to see how the ISO was. When I shot in fairly good lighting (cloudy and dim lighting, but still good) I was blown away at how well it did. I amped it to 3200, could not see noise. then to 6400 (you would think to see something at least).... nope. even when I zoomed in on the picture I could see it some, but lightroom would clear it real fast without losing deatil. 

in low light the ISO still performs really really good. at 3200 it looks really clean and no noise. at 6400 you can see it very very very mildly.  when zoomed in to 1:1 you can see it mildly but it can be clean easy. but here is the crazy thing............. I amped it up to 16000 (yes sixteen thousand) and there is noise of course but it is not that bad. something that can be cleaned up and lose a little bit of detail. 


now here is my down side to all canon gear (and this could be user error). but there is a lot of times when my images are not that beautiful tack sharp. like when you zoom in and can see the detail in someones chin hair for a 13 year old kid. and that is on all the lenses. the 70-200 is still a 95% awesome, but it just rarely gives me that OMG 100% awesome. and it does this on the 7D mk ii. so do you think that it is me? should I try to mess with adjucting the lens in manual settings?


----------



## Mashburn (Apr 17, 2015)

Overread said:


> The biggest problem the 100-400mm has for sports is that its aperture range is restrictive. It's fine in good light, but if you want to do evening, night or just really dull weather sports then you really start wanting that f2.8 aperture. It makes the difference of two  whole stops at the 400mm end and that is make or break sometimes in sports - plus anything that lets you keep your ISO that bit lower is a good thing instead of always pushing the limits of the camera.


100% agree. because on my 70D I was able to do 1600 iso, 1/500, f/2.8. and if I had to go to 4, then that is 3 full stops up. meaning that I would have to raise the ISO to and at 3200 on the 70D you really are pushing it. 

but look at my review on the 7D ii. I cannot wait to try it at 6400 iso at a night game.


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 17, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest problem the 100-400mm has for sports is that its aperture range is restrictive. It's fine in good light, but if you want to do evening, night or just really dull weather sports then you really start wanting that f2.8 aperture. It makes the difference of two  whole stops at the 400mm end and that is make or break sometimes in sports - plus anything that lets you keep your ISO that bit lower is a good thing instead of always pushing the limits of the camera.
> ...


F/2.8 -> f/4 and ISO 1600 -> 3200 are both one stop


----------



## fjrabon (Apr 17, 2015)

Mashburn said:


> UPDATE: I purchased the Canon 7D mk ii. I went yesterday to try it out and really wanted to see how the ISO was. When I shot in fairly good lighting (cloudy and dim lighting, but still good) I was blown away at how well it did. I amped it to 3200, could not see noise. then to 6400 (you would think to see something at least).... nope. even when I zoomed in on the picture I could see it some, but lightroom would clear it real fast without losing deatil.
> 
> in low light the ISO still performs really really good. at 3200 it looks really clean and no noise. at 6400 you can see it very very very mildly.  when zoomed in to 1:1 you can see it mildly but it can be clean easy. but here is the crazy thing............. I amped it up to 16000 (yes sixteen thousand) and there is noise of course but it is not that bad. something that can be cleaned up and lose a little bit of detail.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you're missing focus.


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 17, 2015)

Overread said:


> The biggest problem the 100-400mm has for sports is that its aperture range is restrictive. It's fine in good light, but if you want to do evening, night or just really dull weather sports then you really start wanting that f2.8 aperture. It makes the difference of two  whole stops at the 400mm end and that is make or break sometimes in sports - plus anything that lets you keep your ISO that bit lower is a good thing instead of always pushing the limits of the camera.



sure, the 100-400 is for day time sports,  but if you want a longer telephoto zoom with f2.8 for night games - you're gonna pay a lot for that!

60D
Canon 100-400 (original)
f5.6
400mm


----------

