Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
No I'm not saying that, you can get stunning pictures with your gear assuming A) you have proper technique B) you don't have any issues with calibration/hardware and C) you understand the limits of your gear. Photography has tons of variables, throwing money at problems doesn't always help. Also, everything in photography is a trade off. For example with your 70-200/2.8 you got 1 extra stop of light compared to your F4 version, but you also have a bigger, heavier, lens and significantly less DOF, making it all the more important that you nail focus because less of the image will be sharp.
If you want lots of keepers of a fast moving subject moving directly toward the camera, even the very best camera bodies struggle with that. It's pretty much the most difficult scenario for a modern AF system to deal with in photography.
You are using an entry level camera body, and action photography is not one of it's strong points - there are going to be some limitations there whether you like it or not. If you're expecting great results in very difficult conditions you are probably going to be disappointed.
Fair enough, that makes sense. I was thinking of jumping to the 7D. I just can't afford a full-frame, professional body.
The 70-200/4 L is a good lens, the 70-200/2.8L Mk1 is as good, just with F2.8. Keep in mind as well that with Canon's 1.6 cop factor you're at 320mm equivalent on the long end of that zoom, and you need to be watching your shutter speed (general rule is 1/focal length minimum, so 1/320sec shutter speed at the very least), it has to be high enough to freeze your target AND negate any shaking on your end.
I'm shooting wide open at full manual with "auto-ISO" and keep shutter at 1/500 or above, close to 1/1000
Your 70-200/4 is going to be more forgiving because of the extra DOF at F4, even if your focus is slightly off you probably won't notice, especially on a crop body. Try set your new lens at F4 and see if you get similar results to your previous lens with regards to focus.
For inside a hockey arena I need the 2.8 otherwise I need to be at 6400 ISO or higher for proper speed
If you tried two 24-105L's on the same body, and one was great, then I would guess you either have a bad copy or calibration issues with the other one. Again, if you post some samples we can probably help more.
That's why I thought it might be calibration, but hard to tell when it's completely different parameters. (subject, lighting, etc) I'll keep trying
Why don't you post some samples of what's frustrating you and see if your 70-200/2.8 will focus at a distance in live view at 70mm. You need to do some troubleshooting before coming to any conclusions. Buying gear more suited to the task won't hurt, but it's also not a good solution until you've exhausted all other options. If you want to see if a particular piece of gear is going to make a big difference, rent it or borrow it first.
What are the conditions like in the hockey arenas you shoot in? Post some examples if you can and what settings you used. Maybe it's something silly that's causing you the headaches.
5) Even with a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD card, the RAW buffer on a T4i is only 6 frames, which will go by really fast. The buffer maxes out at 3 frames if you shoot RAW + JPEG which is probably what you had it set on when you got capped at 3.
If you shoot JPEG only you should be able to get around 15 frames in before it slows to a crawl. The faster card isn't going to do much for buffer depth, it will just allow the buffer to clear faster, and raise your minimum FPS very slightly if you try to keep shooting after the buffer is full.
I have a Lexar Professional 150 mB/s card. I get 6 in the buffer at RAW. When I switch to JPG only (not RAW + JPG) that drops to 3. Which doesn't make sense, but that's what I get.