Some of you might remember my various posts about the difficulties of shooting high school BBall with earlier digital gear in the very poorly lit home gym. I did the best I could trying to get images at 1/500-640 (lower seemed to generate motion blur), f2.2 (DOF was just too narrow at more open lens settings with the 85/1.8G). I needed ISO above 5600 to generate usable images, and struggled wtih quality even with a D3s and later cameras, and fast primes. I did have a lot of experience shooting sports at college in the late 70's/early 80's with primative stuff and film so I had a clue as to what to do. My son graduated HS in 2014, so I thought I was done shooting BBall. I sold the 70-200/2.8 VR1 I had, and got the much more portable 70-200/4 AFS VR. Camera gear morphed into a D810. Still have a very good 85/1.8g. Deja vu all over again. After taking his freshman year off, my son made the JV team at a serious BBall college, and I have access to the floor for game photos. Shooting Sunday, I was amazed at how good the results were with the D810 and 70-200/4 AFS VR G. Wow, I can use 1/800 and f/4 at around ISO 2000, which is a piece of cake with the D810! Auto WB seems very consistent from shot to shot in the broadcast quality lighting of the main gym. I did have an 1.8G lens just in case, but did not need to use it. So, I took some additional gear with me to game #2 this evening. With my old 180/2.8D, framing was too tight. The 85/1.8 was good of course, but I missed the zoom range of the 70-200. Wound up putting the 70-200/4G back on the camera to generate good results, but the Getty imaging guy beside me got me to thinking..... Would a 70-200/2.8 VRII operating at 2.8 or 3.2 have a notably (significantly) softer background/better subject isolation than what I can do with the superb 70-200/4 that I have? A second body would be good. I could alternate my 300/2.8 and 20-35 or 28-70/2.8 on the 2nd body for a different prospective. Am thinking that a beater D3 or D700 would be good enough at ISO 2000, but I wonder about the auto WB? My D810 is very good at AWB, maybe I should look at a D610? PS, I would not want to have to sort through the Getty Imaging guy's files. He was definitely doing spray and pray, probably shot 10 frames to one of mine. Glad I don't have to sort through his stuff. He obviously never had to develop and proof his own pushed Tri-X, LOL. Just kidding...am sure I missed some opportunities. So, I am looking for second body comments, and thoughts on the 70-200/2.8 VRII. I do have access to borrow a VRII, but have not been all that impressed by the 2.8 I can borrow vs the 70-200/f4 VR G I have.