Anything Wrong with Getting the 100-400I?

[Cory]

I once rented the original 100-400 and really liked it. Rented the II and didn't think it was much different, really.
Also considering the 70-300L or the Sigma 150-600C, but think that maybe the best value on earth might be the "old" 100-400.
Yes?
Thanks.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

I once rented the original 100-400 and really liked it. Rented the II and didn't think it was much different, really.
Also considering the 70-300L or the Sigma 150-600C, but think that maybe the best value on earth might be the "old" 100-400.
Yes?
Thanks.

I used the 100-400 mk1 for many years and I was always pleased with the results. Nevertheless, last year I traded my mk1 in for the mk2. There is very little difference in the image quality, and it turns out that the push pull zoom on the mk 1 that I always thought I disliked is actually quicker and easier to use for fast action sports. The only significant improvement on the mk2 is the close focus difference, which is a lot better. So I can now do those post match portraits without needing to walk to the opposite side of the field. I am keeping my mk 2 for that reason alone, but it is not worth the extra £1,000 just for this. If I could wind back the clock I would keep my mk1.

 

[Loswr]

The 100-400 II and 70-300L are somewhat sharper. One problem with judging lens performance with rentals is people often don't take the time to do a proper AFMA, and slight front- or backfocus reduces sharpness.

Having said that, the original 100-400 is a very good lens and currently a great value.

 

[Random Orbits]

Depends on the price.

The original version is a nice lens, but the new one focuses faster, better IS and is sharper. However, if you can get the original at a great price, it's worth looking into.

 

[unfocused]

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I own or have owned all these lenses.

70-200 mm f2.8: Indispensable for indoor sports and events like theater performances. Too short for most outdoor shooting. Great as a portrait lens. Heavy.

70-300 "L": Sharp and light. The best travel telephoto available. Pair this with a 24-105 on full frame or a 15-85 on crop frame and you can cover 99% of the situations you will encounter on vacation. If you are going to be walking around all day, this is the lens to take. Too slow for indoor action, but in a pinch it can be hand held at incredibly slow shutter speeds.

100-400 "L": Anywhere where there are birders you will find this lens. By far the most affordable super-telephoto Canon makes. Read reviews from The Digital Picture and others to learn the differences between the I and II versions and decide for yourself if the newer version is worth the extra cost. It will fit in a large camera bag, but you don't want to be carrying this lens with you in a shoulder bag all day.

150-600 Sigma Contemporary: A great value when it's on special. Sometimes you really need the extra 200mm. But, be aware that while this is not a Canon, it is definitely a cannon. If you are going to carry it for any distance (like more than a block) it needs to be in a backpack. It can be handheld, but not for long periods. I can't even imagine what the "sport" version is like since it is two lbs. heavier than this lens.

 

[monkey44]

Shot sports and wildlife professionally for over twelve years with the 100/400 v1 .... in retrospect, I might have had one of those 'excellent copies'. I thought "Wow, an upgrade' and jumped on the v2.

Is it a better lens, absolutely. Quicker focus, a little better IQ ... but enough to pay the price, not sure. Been shooting with it for about two years or so (since it released) ... if I had it to do over, I'd struggle with the decision - for most purposes, the v1 will produce as well as the v2.

Because of my uses, I'd probably still have upgraded and would not "go back" -- v2 is a sweet lens. But you'll not go wrong with the v1 ... just check it carefully because there were a few 'duds' out there at the beginning and throughout its production life.

 

[Maximilian]

I have it, i love it and it is one of my most used lenses when I am outside.

Depends on the price.

The original version is a nice lens, but the new one focuses faster, better IS and is sharper. However, if you can get the original at a great price, it's worth looking into.

+1

...
100-400 "L": Anywhere where there are birders you will find this lens. By far the most affordable super-telephoto Canon makes. Read reviews from The Digital Picture and others to learn the differences between the I and II versions and decide for yourself if the newer version is worth the extra cost. It will fit in a large camera bag, but you don't want to be carrying this lens with you in a shoulder bag all day.
...

+1 to most of it.
I carry my combo (ff + 3 lenses incl. 100-400) in a sling bag and have no complains. When I am in a zoo or shot wildlife I carry camera and lens over the shoulder on a air cell neck strap like this
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/601996-REG/Zeiss_52_91_13_Air_Cell_Comfort_Strap.html
but not that expensive and have no complains either.

If you find that lens at a good price consider the following:
- Do you want the absolute IQ possible for such a zoom? (V2 is surely better but V1 is not bad either)
- Do you prefer rotating over push-pull zoom? (I have no issues here)
- Do you need latest speed and performance in AF and IS? (V2 is surely better here)
- Do you know that the 100-400L V1 is known for some copy variations in image quality and can you test that lens?
(I couldn't recognize anything bad with my copy)

If you have no problems with that go for the lens. Value is surely still high (depending on price).
Yet I would love to get V2 because of latest AF and IS. Better IQ would be nice, but there is no real need.
But price for V2 is to high to justify it for me.

 

[markhbfindlay]

I've just decided to trade up to the mk 2 and managed to find a used one, which I have ordered. The mark 1 is however fantastic and I have had it from several years. Certainly worth getting, although I'm hoping that the mark 2 will be sharper with my 5dsr.

 

[FramerMCB]

I've just decided to trade up to the mk 2 and managed to find a used one, which I have ordered. The mark 1 is however fantastic and I have had it from several years. Certainly worth getting, although I'm hoping that the mark 2 will be sharper with my 5dsr.

Mark F: I have good news for you. I recommend joining "UHH" (the Ugly Hedgehog) a photography forum. On that site you will find some stellar photography from a fellow named Regis Tolbert (from northern Idaho). He was one of the first to get and start sharing photos with the 'big Tammy' (150-600mm) mated to his Canon 6D. In the past year and a half he has added to his equipment, purchasing a 7D mk II, and a 5DSr...also acquiring the Canon 100-400mm f4-5.6L mk II. He has posted some very excellent (mostly birds: perched and in-flight) results with all of his equipment. But his stuff of late, using the 5DSr mated to the 100-400mm mk II are just plain - WOW.
I highly recommend you check the site out, and in particular, Regis Tolbert. (A very nice fellow too, by the way.)

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/b-179136-e-923

The link above is from today's automated email I received (for being a member) that shows the most recent postings. (from members)

 

[mnclayshooter]

- Do you know that the 100-400L V1 is known for some copy variations in image quality and can you test that lens?
(I couldn't recognize anything bad with my copy)

I've heard/read a lot about this as well... I've yet to see or hear from anyone who ACTUALLY has demonstrated that their copy isn't that great, especially with the more recently manufactured ones. I have a copy that I'd call pretty sharp - bought in 2014. I just got the 2x III extender for use on other lens(es) but it does ok (MF only - just as a caveat) on the 100-400 v1. Sharp in the middle, a little fringe-y, if that's a word, but all lenses will be to some extent with the 2x III. Bottom line is that in a pinch it reaches just short of 800mm with the 2x and is passable as sharp. (fyi - it's not actually 400mm on the long end. It's a little short of it, I can't recall how far, but it is in the range of "rounding up" to 400mm for marketing purposes).

Is it as sharp as the 300 f2.8... NO WAY...It's also not $6k... but is that bad? Not at all. I've toyed with the 100-400 mark II... I don't think it's worth the money right now, at least comparing the sharpness between my copy of the v1 to the v2 I was able to borrow/play with a little bit. I personally am saving for the 300 - which is hands down the sharpest long lens I think I've ever seen/used. Seriously, go try one, just for the experience.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Mark I lens can sometimes be had for a low price, I loved mine, my MK II is slightly sharper.

But, be wary. Those bearings in the push-pull mechanism should be very smooth to operate. When they get dirty or start to bind, the lens is basically a basket case due to the high cost to repair it.

Some of the older lenses seemed to be inconsistent in sharpness, while later ones were better and more consistent. The older ones were often excellent, but developed a reputation for too much variation from lens to lens.

If you are considering one, make sure you can return it if you get a lemon, there are a significant number of them out there.

The advantage of the MK II is faster AF, and better reliability due to the elimination of the weak point, those push-pull bearings.

 

[PavelR]

I've never considered to buy original 100-400 because of lack of corner sharpness http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0
compared with primes (200/2, 300/2.8 I) and 70-200/2.8 II. I'm happy now with 100-400 II and Sigma 120-300S...

 

[AlanF]

- Do you know that the 100-400L V1 is known for some copy variations in image quality and can you test that lens?
(I couldn't recognize anything bad with my copy)

I've heard/read a lot about this as well... I've yet to see or hear from anyone who ACTUALLY has demonstrated that their copy isn't that great, especially with the more recently manufactured ones.

Well, hear from me. Mine was rubbish, and I never got a really sharp image from it on my 7D. I did come across a sharper copy of the 100-400mm Mk 1 in the local shop, but I couldn't persuade them to trade in my copy. My Tamron 150-600mm was sharp in comparison, but then my 100-400mm II made my Tammy look soft.

The Mk 1 is better on FF than on APS-C, and was more acceptable on my 5DIII. You can see the comparisons on APS-C on TDP:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

The lenses look much closer on the 1DS III

 

[Sharlin]

The Mk 1 is better on FF than on APS-C, and was more acceptable on my 5DIII. You can see the comparisons on APS-C on TDP:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

The lenses look much closer on the 1DS III

Yeah, this is what I thought about while reading this thread. The higher pixel density in APS-C cameras (and I guess the 5Ds!) really does highlight raw resolution differences. Though I guess corner softness is a lesser concern with crop sensors.