It depends on your requirements. I think a lot of photographers like me in the beginning accept less sharp pictures but after a while we got more picky and want more quality.
When people have seen pictures from a supertele like the 500mm then they know what sharpness is, not many have done this, then they do not know how sharp it can be.
I remember I friend of mine that showed a photo for me, he sad aint it really sharp? I answared no it aint it is soft. Sharp for on person can be unsharp for a another photographer.
Many years ago (film time) I was shooting a lot with Nikon 500mm + 2xtc and with 100 ISO film, I thought the pictures looked nice, but I do not today, I have higher expections levels. Why did I use 2xtc, probably because I was not so good to get close to birds that I am today.
With my former Canon 500mm f/4 I was always using the 1.4 xtc with a tripod. Sold it and bought the Canon 400mm 5.6 and used it handheld, tried the 1.4xtc but did not work so well. But I learned to get close to the birds with 400mm 5.6 handheld.
But now I have ordered the new Canon 500mm II and I will use it handheld and without teleconverter to maximize sharpness, contrast, color, AF speed etc.
A zoom like the 200-400mm would probably not give the same quality as the new 500mm, with sharpness, af speed, focallengt/weight etc
The 400mm 5.6 works very well but sometimes I find the pictures lacked the 500mm sharpness and little probably because I have to shoot at higher ISO settings, 5.6 versus 4.0.
It depends on your requirements. I think a lot of photographers like me in the beginning accept less sharp pictures but after a while we got more picky and want more quality.
I remember I friend of mine that showed a photo for me, he sad aint it really sharp? I answared no it aint it is soft. Sharp for on person can be unsharp for a another photographer.
Many years ago (film time) I was shooting a lot with Nikon 500mm + 2xtc and with 100 ISO film, I thought the pictures looked nice, but I do not today, I have higher expections levels. Why did I use 2xtc, probably because I was not so good to get close to birds that I am today.
With my former Canon 500mm f/4 I was always using the 1.4 xtc with a tripod. Sold it and bought the Canon 400mm 5.6 and used it handheld, tried the 1.4xtc but did not work so well. But I learned to get close to the birds with 400mm 5.6 handheld.
But now I have ordered the new Canon 500mm II and I will use it handheld and without teleconverter to maximize sharpness, contrast, color, AF speed etc.
A zoom like the 200-400mm would probably not give the same quality as the new 500mm, with sharpness, af speed, focallengt/weight etc
The 400mm 5.6 works very well but sometimes I find the pictures lacked the 500mm sharpness and little probably because I have to shoot at higher ISO settings, 5.6 versus 4.0.
