I think that the Sigma Sport 150-600 is a fair compromise if you have enough light. It is 5.6 - 6.3 depending on how far zoomed, so if you have enough light it gives you the most range possible with a reasonable Fstop.

I use the lens for baseball and soccer, I have tried it at nighttime football with mixed results as the local football field is pretty dark in places so it leads to using a high ISO.

What I would rather use is a 600 f4, but I couldn't afford one. In any case, I believe that 600 mm is needed for football, baseball, and soccer. You would give up a little bit of light over the Nikon 200-500, but tests show the lens to be just as sharp and it gives you a little more range.

The down side is that it does weigh 6 pounds, but it balances pretty well and can be hand held.

I think that the Sigma Sport 150-600 is a fair compromise if you have enough light. It is 5.6 - 6.3 depending on how far zoomed, so if you have enough light it gives you the most range possible with a reasonable Fstop.

I use the lens for baseball and soccer, I have tried it at nighttime football with mixed results as the local football field is pretty dark in places so it leads to using a high ISO.

What I would rather use is a 600 f4, but I couldn't afford one. In any case, I believe that 600 mm is needed for football, baseball, and soccer. You would give up a little bit of light over the Nikon 200-500, but tests show the lens to be just as sharp and it gives you a little more range.

The down side is that it does weigh 6 pounds, but it balances pretty well and can be hand held.

For outdoor shots daytime, I have used the 1.4 on my 70-200 f2.8. Decent for what I get. If I want even a bit more reach, I push the 7200 into extended range mode (forgetting the name of that), which gives me 1.5x on top of that. All the way out, has a bit of loss of sharpness, but less than if I just shot with the 70-200 without it and cropped. Choose your poison....

My advise is to see if you can buy a good used 1.4 TC and try it. The loss of light/sharpness not bad. By the time you rent one, you might as well buy a used one, try it, and if you don’t like it, sell it here or elsewhere. I bought mine here and am really happy with it.

While not directly at your question, why 2000-2500 SS? seems a bit high for a lot of sports. I am usually in the 500-800 for middle school, 800-1200 for HS, and 1000-1600 above that. Granted I am not looking through your viewfinder and don’t know how fast your subjects are moving, but if you can slow down a few stops, it would allow you to give us a stop or two on A and/or lower your ISO a bit for less noise. Not sure it will work for your situation, but I would run a controlled experiment to see where blur noticeably appears, and go back up 1-1.5 SS stops from there. JMHO

Good luck. Try the 1.4X. I have never tried the 2.0, but got the same comments from this group last year on the sharpness and high “penalty” of 2 stops of light.

I am posting this question here instead of the General Topics area because I would appreciate feedback from sports photographers. For some background - I shoot a Nikon D4. My main lenses for sports are 24-70 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8, depending on the sport. When I shoot soccer, baseball, Lacrosse (field sports) I find I lack sufficient range with my 70-200. I don't shoot a large number of field events and will shoot close action or mid-field and crop. As many of you have experienced, most locations have poor lighting for photography.

I depend on the f2.8 to make sure I don't have to shoot an ISO greater the 6400 - 8000 range, preferably around 3200. I am usually shooting a shuitter speed of 2000-2500. To get more length I have been looking at Zoom & Prime in the 400mm & 500mm distance. I can't afford f2.8 in those ranges. If I look at a Teleconverter, I can solve the price issue but now my f2.8 lens becomes a f5.6. And I have read the sharpness is diminished with a Teleconverter.

I mainly shot D3 universities and several times each year D1 schools.
Quality of the image is important.

Here's my question - what has been your experience with Teleconverters? Aside from the price advantage, what are the pros and especially the cons from using them compared to a longer lens?

Long lens pricing provides limited options, but buying used/refurbished or simply saving up for the right gear are options I can exercise. But if the advantage isn't significant, then a Teleconverter may be the answer.
I just need more information to make this decision.

Thank you for your feedback.

I shoot a lot of high school sports. I will give you my opinion based on experience.
I shoot with a Nikon D500 and D4 using for soccer 200-500 5.6 vr (which is to long for sideline shots). Before this lens I used and still do 80-400 4.5-5.6 vr an excellent lens and much better for sideline shots.
I carry as a second lens the 70-200 2.8 vr II for shots that are around the net. It's to short for anything else. In all honesty I don't have any experience with teleconverters. Another lens thats works well for close to the net shots is a 24-70 2.8. It's a trial and error situation.
These lenses work well for me.
Good luck and have fun.