Same here!

- For your situation, i’d probably split it mentally into **outdoor** vs **gym**, cuz one “do-it-all” lens is always a compromise on the 7D II. I’ve shot a bunch of kids soccer/baseball + some awful gym lighting and yeah… been there.
- Outdoors in daylight, the move that’s worked best for me is a **fast-focusing telephoto zoom** in the “medium-to-long” range. On the 7D II crop, that reach feels GREAT from the sidelines without having to crop like crazy. You can live at f/4-ish outdoors and still freeze action at like 1/1000 most of the time.
- Indoors, honestly, low-light performance is the wall you hit. You’ll want something **brighter (wide aperture)** even if it means less reach, because gyms force you into higher ISO and slower shutter. A brighter lens also makes AF happier.

- If you’re truly picking *one* lens: go for a **telephoto zoom that’s known for snappy AF**, then accept that gym shots will need higher ISO + careful timing (and maybe a bit more motion blur).

- Quick Q’s so i don’t steer you wrong: **how close are you usually to the action in the gym** (baseline/under basket vs up in the stands), and are you OK with **cropping a lot** to keep a slightly shorter lens? cheers

Subbing for updates

^ This. Also, the thread seems to lean heavily toward the 70-200mm f/2.8 variants, and honestly, that is for good reason. I've shot a lot of prep sports over the years, and in my experience, that f/2.8 aperture is basically non-negotiable for gym work. If you drop to an f/4 lens to save money or get more range, your ISO will skyrocket, and the 7D II sensor starts showing its age with noise pretty quickly once you get past ISO 3200. While the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is the gold standard for AF speed and reliability on that body, it can feel a little short for baseball outfield shots or soccer players on the far side of the pitch. If you find yourself needing more reach outdoors without sacrificing the indoor performance, you might look for a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports. Its heavy as hell and you will definitely want a monopod, but it bridges the gap between indoor and outdoor requirements better than anything else in that price bracket. Still, for pure AF consistency, sticking with the Canon 70-200mm is usually the smarter move.

Re: "Same here!" - totally agree with the 70-200 crowd! i spent three years dragging my 7D II to every single one of my nephews night games and let me tell you, that f/2.8 is a literal lifesaver when the gym lights are basically just glorified candles lol. i actually went a slightly different route and grabbed the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports for EF mount. it is seriously amazing and built like a absolute tank. i used it for soccer too and the AF was snappy enough to catch every slide tackle. i was worried about using third party glass at first but honestly it holds its own against the L series any day. a few things that made it a winner for me:

• the customizable buttons are fantastic for switching AF modes on the fly.
• the weather sealing is legit... i got caught in a downpour at a baseball game and it didnt skip a beat.
• you can snag one used for around $950 which is right in your sweet spot.
• if you need more reach for the outdoor stuff later, it takes the Sigma TC-1401 1.4x Teleconverter really well without losing too much sharpness.

I have been navigating this exact dilemma with my own 7D Mark II for the past several months, and it has been a frustrating process of trial and error. It is incredibly difficult to find a configuration that remains cost-effective while meeting the rigorous demands of both outdoor fields and dim indoor facilities. My current evaluation process has focused on:

• Analyzing the trade-offs between zoom versatility and fixed low-light apertures.
• Monitoring used market listings to stay strictly within the $800–$1,200 range.
• Assessing how various focal lengths translate to the 1.6x crop factor for specific sports distances. Despite my research into different DIY setups and configurations, I still haven't identified a definitive answer that satisfies all these requirements without significant compromise.

Huh interesting. I had no idea. The more you know I guess 🤷

Interested in this too

For your situation, I’d suggest thinking in “what’s the one lens that misses the fewest shots” on a 7D II. If you want ONE solid pick in your budget, my top choice is Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. Used, it’s often right in that $800–$1,200 window, AF is stupid-fast on the 7D II, and f/2.8 is honestly the difference between usable and mushy in a lot of high school gyms. On crop it acts like ~112–320mm FOV, which is realy nice for soccer/baseball sidelines without being insanely tight.

Option A: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM → Pros: best “do-it-all” balance, great tracking AF, f/2.8 for gyms, takes a 1.4x TC decently if you ever need more reach outdoors. Cons: it’s heavy, and 200mm can still feel short for outfield/baseball from far back.

Option B: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM → Outdoors monster. Indoors… yeah, nope (unless your gyms are bright).

Option C: Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art → amazing in gyms, but too short for outdoor field sports.

So yeah, if you’re trying to cover BOTH daylight field + crappy gyms with one lens, the 70-200 2.8 is the happy middle imo. gl!

Good to know!

Honestly im dealing with this exact same headache right now. Ive been shooting with my 7D II since launch day and basically lived in those dark high school gyms, yet i still havent found the perfect glass that doesnt feel like a compromise. I spent all last night looking at AF motor specs and technical white papers...

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM has that legendary speed and the newer coatings really help with flare from overhead lights, but its just so short for outdoor soccer even on a crop sensor.
• Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports is the spec-sheet winner with that constant aperture and extra reach, but the weight is literally double and i worry about the AF consistency compared to native Canon glass. Its such a tough call when you need that f/2.8 to keep your ISO down but crave the focal length for center field. Ngl i keep bouncing between them and just cant make up my mind either.