500mm IS II that much better than I?

I'm considering buying the 500 f4 and am wondering if the II is worth the extra $$? Your thoughts?

EricTober wrote in post #17533567
I'm considering buying the 500 f4 and am wondering if the II is worth the extra $$? Your thoughts?

Heya,

Optically? Not much better. The word "much" being being an exaggerating word, more like "a little better, maybe" would make sense more.

Mechanically? I think it's significantly improved, because of sheer weight. To me, I think it comes down to budget. If on a budget, then the I is the way to go. If your budget isn't really the issue, and you value spending premium costs for the drop in weight, then the II is the way to go.

Very best,

It's hard to go wrong with either. Optically they are close, but the MK II is lighter and pairs better with Canon's newest extenders.

Both are close at 500mm, the newer model is lighter and has better IS. The newer model is sharper and focuses better with the mkIII TC's, especially noticeable with the 2X...which my old 500 does not like much. Then of course we have to remember that the old 500 will not be covered for parts by Canon for forever....

Is the Mk2 a better lens = YES!
If you are not carrying it too far and not relying on extenders much of the time then I would go for the Mk1. As a bare lens the Mk2 is better but I doubt you will see it as the Mk1 is so good anyway. With extenders the Mk1 can be very good but the Mk2 is better in both the IQ and AF stakes - it is not night and day but the Mk2 does have the advantage,
Mobility is where the Mk2 really scores, whilst the weight difference is not huge it does mean that you can venture out without a tripod + head or a Mono Pod - this is where the weight difference IS huge! Currently my "Mobile" wildlife setup is a Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk1 and both Mk3 extenders. On paper this is actually heavier (marginally) than a 500 F4 Mk2! As I am invariably using extenders the 500 Mk2 is a better solution for me, so I am saving up!
If you are not looking for mobility (or a lot stronger than me!) and not relying on extenders then I would go for the Mk1 - otherwise I feel that the Mk2 may be worth the extra, if you can afford it!

If money is no object, then get the ver II. If it is, then you need to ask yourself whether this lens will be handheld more than on a tripod. As responders have mentioned, the ver II is lighter and it's IS is better. Other than that, optically the 500 II is the same or slightly better than the ver I. The ver III TC's are optimized for the 500 II but work very well on the 500 ver I.

If you have enough money for the 500 II, I'd save a little more and get the 600 II. My humble advice only but your the one spending the money.

As one responder put it......"can't go wrong with either". Couldn't have said it better.