Gave in to temptation - got the 100-300.

I recently shot with a used 100-300 Mk.I.  A lot of missed focus shots, but that could have been my error.  Some were quite sharp and nice, though.  But the manual focus ring was stiff as molasses!  I tried AF +MF, and it was simply impossible to fine tune focus with that focus ring.  How are the zoom and focus rings on your Mk. II?

Yes I got the same impression, thought he meant it was better with single rather than dual IS.  Makes more sense now that he somewhat snarkily clarified.

Good info, thanks!

brentbrent wrote:

I recently shot with a used 100-300 Mk.I. A lot of missed focus shots, but that could have been my error. Some were quite sharp and nice, though. But the manual focus ring was stiff as molasses! I tried AF +MF, and it was simply impossible to fine tune focus with that focus ring. How are the zoom and focus rings on your Mk. II?

It feels excellent, just the right amount of resistance for my taste.

Kato777 wrote:

Yes I got the same impression, thought he meant it was better with single rather than dual IS.

There is no single IS with lenses that are Dual IS compatible. It's all or nothing.

Makes more sense now that he somewhat snarkily clarified.

I own the Mark I version of this lens and it is a very decent tele zoom.

Just be sure to not stick a cheap filter, or even a Hoya filter in front of it.
I've recently discover that the Hoya HMC (c)  filter I've been using for about 4 years was causing an ugly bokeh on the out of focus areas and causing image degradation.
Since I'd toke of the filter it was like getting a new lens.
Even wide open at 300mm if the subject fill most of the frame there will be plenty of detail and no need to stop down.
Only if you shoot small subjects (like birds) at a far distance you may need to stop it down a bit.

Thanks for the tip. I have given up on filters and rely on caution and lens hoods to keep the lenses safe.