Canon EF100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM vs Canon EF100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II USM
May 19, 2016 20:42:00 #
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
May 19, 2016 20:44:31 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
Yes, the difference is significant. Only you can determine if it is worth it to you.
May 19, 2016 21:23:08 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
I replaced my 100-400 with the Mark II and don't regret it, but my kids are grown and I don't have to worry to much about money as I did when younger, if I were on a tight budget it would have been a harder decision.
May 19, 2016 21:29:10 #
The older lens is a great lens, used by professionals for more than a decade. Technology has moved on, particularly in focus speed and IS capability. All the old lenses didn't turn to junk when the mark II was released. The older model is readily available and near discount prices relative to the sales price just a few years ago. If price is an issue, look at both models used. If still an issue. don't hesitate in going with the older model. The newer model is sharper, with a more noticeable difference in the edge of the frame. On a crop sensor camera, you can't see as much of that aspect of improvement as the edge of the image doesn't fall on your sensor.
May 19, 2016 21:38:11 #
Thank you for your quick reply, it really helps to hear from you folks that have been doing this for a long time.
May 20, 2016 05:44:45 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
I didn't own/use the original but I did have the mark 11 and used it on both a 7D mark 11 and a 70D. It is a fantastic lens and is, I believe, a brilliant match for the 7D mark 11. Interestingly, although Tony Northrup (You Tube) feels it is sharper than his beloved 400mm 5.6L, he later concluded that the 70 -200mm f2.8L IS mark 11 + 2xTC mark 111 was even sharper. Make of that what you will.
May 20, 2016 06:11:34 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
Never shot with the Mk I version, but the Mk II has:
Silent and nearly instantaneous auto focus.
Excellent IS.
Easily adjusted tension on the focal ring.
IQ that is pretty much the equal of my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II.
A door on the hood for easy adjustment of CP filters.
The ability to focus very close. Right around 3 ft. Closer then my 70-200.
Does very nice portrait work.
Worth the extra money? It was to me. It's performance will not disappoint you. Whether or not it is worth the money to you I can't say.
May 20, 2016 07:05:14 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
I actually have friends that don't shoot Nikon. They shoot that other brand that I can't bring myself to mention. Anyway, most of them have switched to the newer II zoom. Their opinion (now remember that these are the other brand folks) is that the II version is much better than the older version. I have seen their photo's from both lenses and I can tell you that I think the II version is so good that I considered switching to their brand.
Then I woke up from my nightmare.
May 20, 2016 07:37:23 #
May 20, 2016 07:39:01 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
I had the older one and traded it for the new one. So worth the difference for me.
Much stronger construction, Weather sealed, Focuses to about 3' at 400mm which is like almost having a macro lens (Not that much but great for an all round lens in the field for flowers etc without changing lenses), 4 stops of IS instead of 1.5 stops (This is major to me and is so different from the old one this was worth it by itself), Faster focus and some what sharper optics.
Are these things worth the difference? Only you can make that determination.
Here is a photo taken last Saturday in a gymnasium at UNLV from nearly the full length of the facility from the second tier up hand held with the 100-400 MII and a 7D. I had to do noise reduction but you can see the strands of hair at this distance in poor conditions.
May 20, 2016 07:40:33 #
May 20, 2016 08:04:10 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
I shoot with the older version and own a Canon 60D. I think it takes great photos and I don't mind the push-pull motion for zooming. It's actually pretty fast for capturing birds in flight. I often thought about upgrading as I know the new version is worth the price. But I'm currently looking to upgrade my camera and reviewing my options. Below is one of the pictures I took this past weekend with it. The picture was cropped somewhat as this pier was pretty far away.
May 20, 2016 08:10:06 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
One of the lens rental companies published their review of the lens after they had taken it apart. In a nut shell, they think it is as well built as the EF 500mm or EF 400mm lenses. That is just the build. Ask anyone who has one (you did ask) and they will describe it as being great at least. It appears that price is a motivator for you but not to worry, either lens is a very good piece of equipment. The original places restrictions the Mk II doesn't.
May 20, 2016 08:18:40 #
I have the older version and have gotten amazingly shape shots with it. I does have some issues with regard to slowing down my 1DX and 7dII, why, I still do not know. Based on the reviews and what I have heard from many photographers is that the MKii version is a giant leap above the older version. If you pick up the older version, you will always be asking yourself, could this shot have been a little better. I don't think I could live with that. Go for it, get the new one and never look back.
May 20, 2016 08:51:28 #
kodiac1062 wrote:
Is there there much difference between the two lenses? I have neither. Is it worth the extra money?
I'm selling my 100-400 IS ll, it's in mint condition, has a Realtree Lens Coat cover and a Kirk tripod foot. Asking $1900. Hate to part with it but I have to many unexpected expenses at the moment.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.