well, i think i will give 500mm f4 , USM V1, (or even f4.5) a shot, as soon as i will sell all my Nikon gear .
it seems 500mm V1 is tack sharp as the V2.
It's not, especially not with extenders.
That certainly doesn’t agree with my experience. From what I’ve seen the mk1 is actually a tiny bit sharper with the extenders.
Depends what resolution camera and sensor you're using but in many reviews the 500 I isn't as sharp as the II.
500 I should still be sharper than the RF 100-500 though.
5DSR
Explains alot.
Yes, that what you said isn’t accurate
So you're saying the MK1 is just as sharp as the MK2 with extenders, right. Ok.
Well this was an interesting conversation, thanks for your input.
Yep, that’s pretty much the reality of it. Frustrating for gear snobs but that’s how it is. Now, the Mk2 does offer some real benefits, not the least of which are much better IS, significantly light weight, improved AF performance with the Mk3 TC’s and full performance from the R5 and R6 just to name a few. You can also get a Mk2 serviced by Canon which isn’t the case for the original. So yes, you definitely get a lot of extra benefits for your money, sharpness isn’t one of them.
We'll agree to disagree but I'm pretty certain the overall IQ is abit better on the MK2, and especially with teleconverters.
I would tend to agree, but I can't speak for the 500mm F4 Mk 1as I never owned it, but my 600mm F4 IS (pre mk ll) was soft with a 1.4 and horrid with a 2X. Bare, it was very good. So, personally, I'd be skeptical of a 500 F4 Mk l... especially if it needs servicing.
My 500 F4 ll was a dream wide open with extenders... 1.4lll being the better of the two. I do miss it. Best lens I ever owned. It's like satisfaction guaranteed.
My Sigma 500 F4 is very good image wise, but certainly not in the same class as the Canon for build and performance (ok on DSLR's, not so on the R5).
If I were going to buy a used Canon 500 F4, I'd spend the extra money and buy the MK ll... but that's just me.
