70-200 f/2.8 Z Performance with Extenders vs 100-500

[cgliden]

I currently own the RF 100-500, and plan to pick up the new 70-200 Z here soon. Most of the work I do is traveling, so minimizing my kit as much as possible is quite important to me. My question is, although the image quality and autofocus would be degraded on the 70-200 with a 2x extender, would it be significant enough to justify keeping the 100-500, and having it in the bag at the same time? I'm also looking to potentially sell the 100-500 to offset the cost of the 70-200, as it is quite expensive. I also have a 600 prime that I use for longer wildlife shooting, and am curious if having the 70-200 with 1.4x and 2x extenders, as well as that, would serve me well enough to justify not keeping the 100-500.

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, the 1.4x is yes. or perhaps OK is a better word, and the 2x is a no but that's me as everyone has their goal of what is good and not. Some people think an iphone is good so there you are. And, for snapshots the iphone is good but that's where it ends in my idea of good.

These types of questions are always in the eye of the beholder unless you are worried what others think of your photos. If you are the latter you won't use any tel-con on a fantastic lens like the 70-200mm f2.8L as all extenders degrade the IQ of the lens.

You don't want any extra gear in your bag and that too is a consideration. Does that limit equal a decrease in IQ perhaps it does since any photo you get is better than the one you didn't or can't get.