Originally Posted by photodad1 What camera body and lens did you use?

I used two 1D4 bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 and the other with a 400/2.8. For the young kids, I sat on the ground to shoot.

One other aspect I forgot to mention is that I emphasized in every communication that this was a fundraiser, and that all proceeds went to benefit the club. My daughter plays for a well-recognised club (they are sponsored by Adidas, even though they are only 15-16 years old!) and perhaps this helped to get some attention.

I've been shooting local HS rugby for the last 5yrs. Many here have made some good points, ie the 400mm2.8f is definitely the lens of choice, but out of normal reach unless your a full time pro. I use both the 70-200mm2.8 and the 100-400mm 5.6. At first I was using a 2x converter on the 70-200, but found focus reaction time was slow. The native 70-200 is just not enough lens for a normal size field/pitch. The 400mm reaches out, but of course the 5.6 is an issue, but is effective and works well for day games. I've even used it at night games, but more for non or slow action shots (ie scrums, huddles, etc). I also like the ability to zoom out to 100 quickly when needed. Remember that if you shoot a prime 400mm, you should have a 2nd body for the 70-200 for close action.
All in all, the 100-400mm has many limitations, but works well for starting out or while saving for the 400mm2.8.

I don't speak Canon, but as you consider whether to invest in better equipment, decide whether you will likely use it for this professional direction. If you will do a lot of sports, fast, long glass may be worth it. If this is a dalliance but you do other work, you currently have a 3 year old body, and I suspect (but I do not speak Canon so take this with a grain of salt) that for less than the price of a 400/2.8, you can get a body with 2-3 more stops of low light performance. Having gone through that recently in Nikon, my 200-400/F4 is now shooting night action I could not even have considered before the body swap.

Good glass (IMO) is always a better investment for the dollar as it lasts longer than bodies. But it is worth figuring out which one might mean the most for your direction right now.

Originally Posted by photodad1 What camera body and lens did you use?

I shoot with a canon 7D and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is usm in the daylight because I just need my zoom. As the evening rolls in I use my 70-200 2.8. With the crop factor it does the job. With the 70-200 2.8 you simply have to do a lot more moving around and not get down in the dumps when you miss a shot or two. Hey, it's all about the challenge!

Originally Posted by mercphoto Easy answer. 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8. You're right to be leary of losing an f-stop, as HS football is usually at night, under poor lights. This is an expensive sport to photograph correctly.

I'm going to toss out another idea. Get a used 300/2.8 and just forget about a 400 or longer lens. Will there be times you need more focal length? Probably. But we have such high pixel counts these days that you can crop quite a bit out of an image and still have something more than acceptable for prints. Even for big prints.

When I (briefly) shot youth football back in 2006 or 2007 I had a 20D (8 megapixels) and a 300/2.8. And the guy I was shooting for wanted nearly every photograph cropped in post. (This basically made up for the fact you can't adjust the focal length to frame the photo exactly how you want it, so you remove the extraneous stuff in post). With today's pixel counts this is extremely feasible and a good way to get extra focal length for free.

Originally Posted by mercphoto I would ONLY go that route if the Sigma is cheaper than the Canon 300/2.8 prime. For field sports, honestly, a zoom is of little value. You will be at full zoom 95% of the time. I once owned the Canon 300/2.8L IS and it was utterly fantastic. I really, really miss that lens and wish I had never sold it. It would have been great for the car racing I did in 2010. If you can swing the purchase price of a 300/2.8 you will NOT regret owning it. I can only assume the same for the 400/2.8.

Depends on how you shoot. Many pros will have a 300 or 400 mm on one camera and a 70-200 on another.

The Sigma 120-300 is a great compromise. It's true you spend most of your time at full length, but its nice to pull back when the action gets close.

Originally Posted by photodad1 If I could get a full time or a good part time job as a sports photographer I would invest in either the 300mm or 400mm lenses. However, photographing for the paper doesn't pay a whole lot as you all know.

Just looked at that again and I'll re-iterate: Keep the 70-200/2.8 and just crop in post for times when you didn't have the focal reach to fill the frame. It don't matter for newspaper. And, at least around here, newspapers don't pay well enough to invest in any glass at all. :(

I agree with you. However, when I shoot in low light I crank up the ISO to 6400. With this, I see a lot of noise, especially taking photos from the back of the end zone. Is there a way to smooth out the noise in Elements 10?

Originally Posted by photodad1 I agree with you. However, when I shoot in low light I crank up the ISO to 6400. With this, I see a lot of noise, especially taking photos from the back of the end zone. Is there a way to smooth out the noise in Elements 10?

Imagenomic Noiseware for $79 is phenomenal. It's a plugin for Photoshop including Elements. You won't be disappointed!