Which to buy first?

[ECR]

You guys helped me on the upgrade from my 80D to an R6ii so I figured I'd ask opinions again. Right now, I'm mostly just shooting our own kids at home and around the house. They're getting more involved in sports I'm needing to get more reach. At one point I used to take a lot of dog sport pics and soccer/Hockey for someone else that ran a business and used to get to use some pretty nice 300 and 400mm Primes back in the DSLR days.

Those are a bit out of reach for me in the price category. If I did get one, my parts might become a permanent trophy on my wife's nightstand so I'm not going to test that theory.

I'm between the 70-200 2.8Z or the 100-500. I think the 70-200 would get more use year round, indoor stuff like wrestling and basketball and school functions etc but I think would be short on reach for soccer and baseball. They're young enough I can get close enough for indoor sports to shoot with what I have for now so I was thinking 100-500 first since I have nothing with reach for my new R6ii for outdoor stuff.

Lighting isn't really a concern as they play primarily late morning and day games. Nothing under the lights yet.

How does a 70-200 2.8 with extender compare with 100-500? worth exploring? Or just trying to do too much with 1 lens? I half thought if that combo would work and I could skip buying a 2nd lens for maybe 3-5 years, a 100-300 or 400mm prime starts becoming a real option for me. Over 2-3 years both are likely for me, but I'll only be getting 1 this year. which to buy first?

I'll suffer from paralysis by analysis for a while before I buy anything, but if anyone has any insights to offer, I'd appreciate them.

Thank you

 

[West Coast Birder]

The 70-200 F/2.8 Z takes the 2X extender quite well. Look at this thread from @RobAmy.

My recommendation is, given your stated use case, to get the 70-200 and the 2X extender. You'll get 400mm equivalent FOV at F/5.6 which isn't too shabby, and the IQ seems to be pretty good from Rob's experience. You'll miss a bit on the long end, but I think that the 70-100 range may be more useful in photographing kids than the 400-500 range.

 

[paddler4]

I have a 70-200 and a 100-400, both EF. A couple of thoughts:

Canon has you over a barrel. For what you describe, there is in the ideal world no reason to buy f/2.8. For sports, the narrower DOF is useless, and you only get one additional stop. You are mostly shooting in daylight, and in any case, boosting ISO by one stop on the R6 II does minimal damage. True, with a 2x TX you will be losing another stop, but even then, it won't often matter. You would save both a lot of $$ and a lot of weight going with an f/4. However, from what I've read, Canon made the decision to make the RF 70-200 f/4, unlike the EF, incompatible with extenders. So you are stuck with f/2.8, if I remember right.

Personally, I would go with the 70-200 and an extender. I find the 70-200 my second most useful lens and my 100-400 one of my least used. I would rather not lug the weight of the longer lens. I often just pack the 70-200 (in my case, the EF f/4) and a 1.4X extender.