TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Not fast enough for lots of indoor sports and you don’t need a FL that long. Fine for outdoor daylight sports.

One alternative - If the weight of the 70-200 is an issue, as it is for me after hours of shooting, a 135 f2L and carrying a 1.4EX II or III in your pocket cuts the weight substantially for indoor shooting and gives you options out to ~200mm @ f2.8. I use this combo for indoor sports when the 70-200 (which weighs 3lbs) gets to be a bit much.

btbg

Some people don't seen to realize how much better 2x extenders have gotten, or how much better they work on a fast lens than on other lenses. Is it perfect? No, but it beats the choices with the amount of money the op wants to spend.

gray_ghost2 Loc: Antelope, (Sac) Ca.

Paul's suggestion is good. But being older, it might be advisable to get a mono pole to support the weight and help with the balance of all the camera gear.
Good luck with your future photos.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I do not question optical acuity of the lens or extender - what I do question is the ability to manage the size/weight of the ensemble and the speed of focus with a 2X - even tho Canon claims AF speed has been optimized with the V-III extender and V-II lenses.....we are talking SPORTS here where mobility and speed matter ....

btbg

We are indeed talking sports. Thats why most sports photographers have a 600 f4 or a 400 f2,8 or a 100-300f2.8. Speed matters which is why you get bigger and faster lenses. Monday I shot softball with the Nokon z400f2.8 which has a biilt in 1.4 teleconverter. Used it at 560 most of the time. Today I will be shooting track. Some field events will be shot with a 70-200 but most of tje meet will be shot with the bigger lens. Friday I will ne shooting baseball. There will be a 150-600 on a tripod prefocused on home plate with a remote control amd there will be a 2x converter on the 400 so it will be eitjer an 800f6.3 or there abouts or an 1120 f8. Mobility is secondary because you can cover most of the field that way while being stationary in one location.
Then Sunday I shoot a mountain bike race with the 400 and a separate body with a 24-70. Expect to walk about 5 miles throughout the course of the day. In between those events I have golf, tennis, more softball and baseball and possibly boys volleyball depending on time. I do not use a monopod, that just adds extra weight. I use a large backpack with cleaning cloths, raingear for my camera and extra gear for me when the weather is bad as well as spare batteries, water, snacks if appropriate, and extra lenses. Having the fastest gear you can afford is far more important than weight. When other photographers are covering the same events as I the most common gear is a 70-200f2.8, a 2x converter for it, and probably a 600 f4. Other common lenses are the 300f2.8, the 100-300 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8. The Sigma sport 150-600 is common at smaller events but not big ones. Sports photographers simply do not travel light.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This OP is not about YOU or what most pro sports photographers do - it is about a grandmother wanting pictures of her grandsons ......

M1911 Loc: DFW Metromess

In days of old,
When Flashbulbs sold,
And Autofocus wasn't invented,
We Focused on a zone,
And went home contented.

I used to shoot high school basketball and football that way. It helped to have sideline access.
Basketball was F4 at ISO 1600, 125th second with a 35mm F2,5 Nikkor lens on a Leica M3.

btbg

I know that and no matter who it is the faster and bigger the lens the better it is for sports. A 70-200 is the entry level lens for sports. Thats just a fact. If you can get close enough it is possible to shoot almost any sport with that. Outdoor in good light you can probably get by with something else but she specifically said inside and out, and you have already agreed that your recmendation would not be great indoors, so I no longer understand your point. What pro sports photographers do is relevent to the discussion. Dont you think they would use less expensive and lighter lenses too if they could get the images they need. Its just a fact that faster is better and bigger is better in the world of sports. If Nikon made one my lens of choice would be a 100-300, but ublike Canon they do not make one, at least not for their Z cameras.

btbg

Shooting sports was a lot tougher then and the resultsboften had at least some motion blur. You also might have only 36 photos for an entire game if there was a tight deadline. Oh, tje good old days.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Here - https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Extender-EF-2x-III-Review.aspx - is a very good objective review of the Canon 2X III for those having a serious interest .....
.

Bruce T Loc: Michigan

I shot several basketball games with a Canon RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 and my Sigma 85 f/1.4. The zoom is great for moving shots.
When I shoot football shots, I use a Sigma 150-500. I found a good price on this lens, I wanted a 150-600 but for fun football, good enough.

Bruce T Loc: Michigan

I shot several inside basketball games shots with a RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 lens. It can be done. I was using a Canon RP.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

btbg

It can be done if its a well lit gym, not so much of its a dungeon