A little extra reach

[Kretch]

I was at the zoo with my 70-200 f/2/8. Although it performed wonderfully, there were a few times I could have used a little extra reach. Maybe 300mm. So my question is, do I spring for the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, or get a 1.5x teleconverter for the 70-200?
The reason I'm leaning towards the tele is that I will still have a constant aperture across the WHOLE focal length correct?
1. What will 1.5x bring the 2.8 up to?
2. Would the quality be as good as the 70-300?
3. What is the difference in weight?

Any reasons why buying the 70-300 would be smarter than a tele?

Thanks,
Kretch

[Aegea]

Well, there aren't many 1.5x converters, so you'd probably want to get either the Nikon TC14 or the Kenko 1.4x converter. The Nikon is supposed to be better (and is definitely more expensive).

1.4x will lose you one stop, so your 70-200 f/2.8 will become a 105-280 f/4, constant across the focal range.

Can't comment on quality of the 70-200/1.4x combo, but my 70-300 was pretty soft at 300, as well as being a stop slower, so I'd guess the 70-200/1.4 would have an edge.