Canon 100-400 L i vs ii

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...

I only have the Mk I version, and have had a passing interest in the Mk II version but haven't acted on it yet (and with the recent Canadian price hikes probably won't for quite a while). The general consensus is that the mk II is not any better than the mk I at 400mm in the center, (where the I is best). The II is generally more consistent across the frame and at wider FL, with better features.

I would get the II if I didn't already have the I.

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.

With the 5DIII the difference will probably be limited with the new version winning out. CS is also better.

On a 5DS/R the difference is noticeable especially sharpness is improved.

This is what I was wondering. Since DPReview's review used a 5DSR, I'm wondering how much difference I would see on a 5DIII, would be good to see some samples from a body with a lower resolution sensor...

II also focus much faster and is not push-pull. Its a good upgrade, now I need to see what to do with mk I.

gavin wrote:

II also focus much faster and is not push-pull. Its a good upgrade, now I need to see what to do with mk I.

There is nothing wrong with the MKI.  It is a very good lens.  I used mine for years.  However, the MKII - IMHO - is a little better lens.  It focuses faster than the MKI and I think the MKII renders better color.  (I have several Canon "L" lenses.  The 100-400 MKII is the first lens that has really impressed me with the way it renders color.)

Those shots are really nice!

Decided to purchase the MKII version - the overall quality, autofocus speed and "macro" capabilities, in addition to the four-stop stabiliser and weather sealing, swung it for me.

Jon Tarbuck wrote:

Decided to purchase the MKII version - the overall quality, autofocus speed and "macro" capabilities, in addition to the four-stop stabiliser and weather sealing, swung it for me.

I'm sure you won't be disappointed. I was shooting a conference for two days this week - VERY gloomy, working at very high ISOs. Dug out my fastest lenses, but the best shots of speakers were taken on day 2 with this lens. Sure, at maximum ISO, but they're so sharp and so much better framed than the rest they've saved me massive amounts of time in post - a bit of NR in LR and they're good to go. I now love this lens more than ever.