If you are shooting purely in daylight, you'll be fine with the 100-400GM. I'm coming from shooting varsity soccer and they're 95% night games here in Texas. A9 + 100-400 struggled mightily at night, so I ended up getting the Sigma 120-300 Sport and the 1.4x TC along with the MC 11 adapter. It works, but I found the TC softened images too much, so I went back to just the adapted lens and cropped as little as necessary when I had to. I do this as part-time for pay, but the pay isn't good enough yet to afford the purchase of the 400GM, which is the ideal lens. As others have said, for your use case, the A9 hands down. Since you state it's all daytime, you might rent and consider using/buying the new 200-600G instead of the 100-400+TC. It gets you to 600 @ 6.3 vs. 560 @ 8, and focuses very quickly. I haven't given mine a full test yet, but initial thoughts are it's a great lens (though will not work for my game usage unless I get a rare daytime game).
I would hold off on the 1.4x. Not that it affects image quality that much (I have it and use with 400/2.8 and A9) but it reduces the aperture which on the 100-400 makes a relatively slow lens even slower. Someone mentioned that you will be fine in sunlight but VERY limited at night under High School lights. I agree as this is what I shoot 75% of the time. 3-4 stops is the difference between 1/1,000 shutter speed and 1/250 or slower which simply won't stop much action. You might not want to hear this, but I suggest you get the 70-200 2.8 to pair with an A9 and just wait for the action to come to you. Also, during the day, pair with a 1.4x or 2x to get a longer range similar to the 100-400. I use a 70-200 for football as my second camera when the action comes to my side of the field. I also pair it with a 1.4x for volleyball and basketball inside. If I could only have 1 lens it would be the 70-200 2.8.
The rumor sites are predicting an action optimized APS-C camera to be announced this week. I am waiting to see the details of this camera. If it provides similar performance to the A9 with the reach of APS-C then it could be the best choice for your use.
spineguy wrote:
so in your opinion, the 100-400 is not an option? I dont see myself shooting under lights as high school soccer is a day sport. But I have a 70-200 with my nikon gear and love the lens, just need reach
As I pointed out, if the games are in good light (day time) the 100-400 will be fine. Issue is early evening into night time. Down here in Indy, high school JV games start at 5:30pm and the Varsity starts at 6:45pm. Right now the varsity matches in the second half require 2.8 glass. Somewhere about mid Sept the JV games in the second half also require 2.8 glass.
You seem to be where I am right now in terms of dilemma. I have Canon equipment and am looking at getting either the A7III or A9, but I will need to adapt glass as I have a 300 2.8, Sigma 150-600, and a pile of Primes and a 24-70 and 70-200. (and maybe soon to be a 500) No way I'm selling all that glass when my 1Dx does well with it all.
Anyway, from the various members I have PM'd and threads I have read, Canon big white glass works well with the A9 and sigma MC-11 plus a Sigma 1.4 if necessary. Not sure yet if it is all Canon big whites or just the version II and III. Anyway, if it works well with V1 of the big whites with the MC-11 then you can get a 300 2.8 for a couple grand, a 400 2.8 for $3k, and a 500f4 for less than $3k. Even the version 2 lenses are less than $6k now used on the forum.
I originally thought I could adapt my Canon 400, 100-400 & 70-200 to the A9 and be fine but wanted to verify for myself since some had indicated adequate performance while others were not satisfied. Sure enough, adapted lenses worked but the combo just didn't perform as well. AF speed wasn't good enough for me. It was a noticeable difference using native glass, so both A9's are now only using Sony versions. BTW their glass is definitely top quality IMO.
Knew up front a complete change out was the likely outcome. So, yup I'm sitting here with an entire Canon set of sports gear, bodies and lenses that I'll have to be putting up for sale. Still glad I made the switch.
As for cheap, ultra high IQ, lightweight, super teles there are none and that’s not a Sony problem but optics/economics. If you can work off a tripod then older (read Great Whites) will have some utility. I tried a lot of them out. Finally bought the Sony 400GM a miracle of a game changer.
Jochenb wrote:
However: something I noticed right away is that the A7III has superior IQ. It has higher dynamic range, better noise performance and it has a weaker AA filter. This means you really get more detail.
All of which is meaningless if the A7III is not capturing as many soccer shots in focus for the OP as the A9 would.
Any mention of a 400 f2.8 in relation to the OP's shooting and budget is ridiculous.
I am wondering if the a9 is worth the extra 1200 or so? I take 70 percent soccer for my high school daughters
a9 will be a huge step up from the d810, but make sure that you are o.k. with evf over ovf, because there are still a few people out there who can't seem to adjust to new technology, even when it's better.
in terms of focal length, what fl are you currently using for soccer with the d810? do you have good field access? you are shooting just one person on the team, which is a different proposition than having to cover all of the game highlights, by all of the players.
In terms of lenses, I think you face a similar choice as I do now that I’m switching my bird photography gear, which is really how much a potential shot in low light is worth it to me. I have the Canon 500mm f/4 IS II and have concluded that once I sell it, I will not buy a similarly expensive lens just to gain one stop over lenses half the price. That stop is just not worth it for me. Your conclusion might be different for the soccer games.
