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.
That's interesting. Everything I've seen suggests the opposite. Even a few friends that have the Mk I and shot my Mk II say its definitely sharper, especially with TCs.
The Digital Pictures crops tell that same story. I'm curious, do you shoot your lenses stopped down? Stopping both down a stop would make everything you said make a lot of sense.
Also note we are talking about very tiny differences as being significant, so read that into the results.
Here are the TDP crops for the two.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Yea and the digital picture says the 600 mk3 is softer than the mk2 also. Did your friends use them on a sturdy tripod and test the two lenses side by side on a test target?
Another friend let me shoot his 600L III and it definitely seemed softer than his 600L II with a TC. That said, shooting it bare, I didn't feel like there was anything in it between the two. He does really like it, but I can tell he isn't fully happy with it. Its weird though, he complains about it every once in a while, but refuses to go back to the heavier lens. So, in his case the weight savings outweigh the TC performance.
As far as the tripod question, they both use tripods with their 500's because of the weight, but shot mine handheld and still felt it was better, especially wide open. That said, they weren't shooting charts and brick walls so it was all subjective.
