Canon 100-400 L i vs ii

Am looking to purchase a telephoto lens for my 5D Mark III, and have narrowed it down from a focal range, size and weight point of view to the two Canon 100-400 L lenses.

I shoot wildlife, some birds, and quite a few of my two and half year old son in generally good lighting conditions.

The first version of this lens is going to disappear at some point, and is obviously a great deal cheaper than the new version right now - but is it false economy to buy the older version if the new one is so much better? I've heard that the autofocus performance of the newer model is a lot better, and that it's a lot sharper across the frame, at all focal lengths and pretty much all apertures...

Jon Tarbuck wrote:

Am looking to purchase a telephoto lens for my 5D Mark III, and have narrowed it down from a focal range, size and weight point of view to the two Canon 100-400 L lenses.

I shoot wildlife, some birds, and quite a few of my two and half year old son in generally good lighting conditions.

The first version of this lens is going to disappear at some point, and is obviously a great deal cheaper than the new version right now - but is it false economy to buy the older version if the new one is so much better? I've heard that the autofocus performance of the newer model is a lot better, and that it's a lot sharper across the frame, at all focal lengths and pretty much all apertures...

You've heard correct. The Mk II is extremely good indeed and if it is within your budget then get it.

I currently have both versions.

The version 2 is faster in AI servo focusing and has better IS system. at the every so important 400mm and center of the image, the two are very similar. Version 2 does turn in a better overall performance though when comparing the entire zoom range.

If money is not an issue, version 2 is better (though I like the pull push of version 1). if it is an issue, for many years version 1 has produced amazing images for many photographers. this is esp true on the 5d3.

Here is a 100% crop of version 1, on the 70D (high pixel density) wide open at 400mm. My version II is not any better or worse (though may be a bit higher keeper rate if AF is working better),  click for 100% or loup view.

I have only used the first version of the lens once on a 6D, and did find the images to be a little soft and the stabiliser not quite as effective as I hoped - but this could just be my imperfect technique.

I do like the push-pull mechanism of the first version, however, and am a bit concerned by how quickly and smoothly the rotary zoom mechanism will work when I need to zoom and autofocus as quickly as possible...

Good copies of the original are very good; the new lens is great, though.

Loosen up the zoom ring, and you can use the new one as push/pull if you wish. I don't.

I guess it will be a bit of a gamble if I went for the first version as to whether I would get a good copy or not - just have to decide if the second version is worth more than twice as much to my photography now...

Jon Tarbuck wrote:

I do like the push-pull mechanism of the first version, however, and am a bit concerned by how quickly and smoothly the rotary zoom mechanism will work when I need to zoom and autofocus as quickly as possible...

The new version (I didn't own the 1st) has an adjustment ring so you can decide if you want the rotating zoom to be smooth and easy or stiff and harder to zoom. What an amazing idea. I use that 2nd version on a 7dmk2 (though on the dmk3 it's great too) and it is amazing.  i miss the 2.8 a little but it's great.

I just upgraded to mk II. Here are my thoughts

1) Turn zoom is better than push pull.

2) AF is much faster

3) Its thicker so its hard to hold the barrel of the lens to carry it around.

4) PQ is much better.

All in all i am very happy with my upgrade. BTW I saw that its on sale down to $1600 ish recently so go grab one.

mk I has the same tight - smooth ring. Personally I prefer just a zoom lock.

A few people have said that the first version doesn't work well with the 1.4x canon teleconverter - will it autofocus? I have a 5d3 so af works down to f8...

I think mk I is good but mk II is better in many ways. So its not a must upgrade, but a pretty good one. I felt it was worth it after I got mk II and used it for a few weeks.

Jon Tarbuck wrote:

A few people have said that the first version doesn't work well with the 1.4x canon teleconverter - will it autofocus? I have a 5d3 so af works down to f8...

I have a 5D3 and the MkII & TC combo and autofocus does work on that quite well. You're limited to the centre spot and expansion spots but it definitely works in good light and the IQ is still very decent.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yod/26748730316/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yod/22895025554/

Thanks. Good info. I do intend to get 1.4x when I upgrade my 5D II.

These two big improvements leave me wanting to trade in my totally awesome 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400 v1 lenses, but they have been magnificent to me fantastic values for the money.

Version 1 is a very good lens.  I used it for 12 years.  I did not care for the push/pull way to change focal length but I got used to it.

Version 2 is a better lens IMHO.  You change focal length conventionally with the 100-400II.  The 100-400II focuses as quickly as any Canon lens that I have . . . especially on my 7DII.  The pictures that I get are sharp and the color is good.

You won't go wrong with either lens.  I just gave Version 1 to my son.  He will get some good use out of it.