DavidM Loc: New Orleans, LA

When they're in stock, then refurbished is what i would recommend:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-100-400mm-f45-56l-is-ii-usm-refurbished?WT.mc_id=C126149

kmahar

I have the older version 100-400 and am no longer using it. If you would like to purchase it, pm me and we can work something out.
Ken

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I had the I model and loved it, EXCEPT I did not like the push/pull mechanism for zooming. The model II no longer has that and, optically, is even better, per the reviews. Both great lenses. Here in LA, on Craigslist, you can get a model I in very good condition for about 850-900.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As mentioned, optical IQ differences on a crop frame body are very small.

If you do a lot of close-up work - the II is better - it goes closer with better IS.

As for ergonomics and speed of zooming, I think the version I is better - if you can adapt to the push/pull. I believe you can push/pull the II version also - just not as easily.

As mentioned, the other option is the 70-200 II W/2X which is slightly more expensive and slightly heavier. The 70-200 is a non-extending zoom - so it stays in balance on any support system you might have and also you can zoom with one or two fingers. You also have the option of 200mm f2.8, and 280mm f4 with 1.4X TC .

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

You didn't have a nightmare you had an ephifany sir you need to go to the other brand!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Yes agree. The II is a significantly better lenses.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Version II is not push/pull.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I never used the original version because I'm not a fan of push/pull zooms. Some people love em... Some people are like me, and don't.

Push/pull zooms are quite fast to use. I've noticed over the years that the original 100-400 is particularly popular among air show photographers and folks shooting birds in flight... where the really fast zoom action seems a benefit. Some folks refer to the push/pull 100-400 as a "dust pump" and feel it leads to more sensor cleanings. I don't know if that's true or not. But it was another concern I had that made the lens less than attractive to me. Still, I have seen a lot of people use it to make excellent shots.... and the prices are sure good right now. It's still available new some places, for about $500 less than it sold for before the Mark II was introduced. Note that the original doesn't play well with filters.... Over the years I've seen a lot of people having concerns about "soft" images, who were surprised how much sharper the lens was as soon as they removed the "protection" filter they had on it. That seems to happen regardless of filter quality.

The Mark II is a more standard 2-ring zoom design. I got one recently and have made a few thousand shots with it (on 7DII). Seems quite good. The guys over at Lensrentals.com took one apart to see what it looks like inside (they love to do that). They commented that it was one of the best-built lenses they'd ever disassembled... certainly the best zoom, rivaling some super tele primes that cost close to $10,000. You can read their thoughts and see the guts of the lens on their blog, if you wish (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/02/canon-100-400-is-l-mk-ii-teardown-best-built-lens-ever/).

The Mark II has 3 to 4-stop Image Stabilization. The original's IS was rated as 2 to 3-stop. I've got other lenses with both types of IS that I've used for a lot longer and have to say that either is helpful... the newer type of IS is just a little more helpful. A lot still depends upon good technique, but you can get more sharp shots at slow shutter speeds. The original 100-400 seems to have the earlier type that has to be turned off when on a tripod. I think the Mark II's IS will self-detect and turn itself off (other lenses of this type, I never turn off the IS). The 100-400 II is the least expensive Canon lens to have "Mode 3" IS... you have to spend at least $7000 to get any other EF lens with it. This is "instant IS" that only activates during the exposure.... which suggests that the IS is extremely fast-acting. It's also found on Mark II version EF 300/2.8 IS, 400/2.8 IS, 500/4 IS etc. I have not used "Mode 3" yet... really not sure I will have much reason to. But it's there if I need it.

Both lenses are relatively large and heavy... about 3.5 lb. I shot for over 12 hours with mine last Sunday, all handheld and almost non-stop, and my arm is still a bit sore. For comparison, the EF 300/4 IS and various Canon 70-200/2.8 lenses are about 2.5 lb. They also are a bit smaller, though the 100-400mm does retract quite a bit for storage (the 300/4 and 70-200/2.8s are IF lenses, so don't retract at all).

The 100-400 II is rather large diameter. My hands are rather average size, but got tired and cramped up after handholding the lens for 12 hours.

The larger front ring of the Mk II is the zoom ring, and is where it feels most natural to handhold - "cradle" the lens with the left hand - while in use. (Most other Canon zooms, the rear ring is the zoom, while the front is focus.)

The Mark II is very close focusing. Used to be that my EF 300/4 IS was my closest-focusing long tele (i.e. my "poisonous snake" lens). For many years the 300/4 has been the closest-focusing, with higher magnification of any Canon lens longer than 200mm... except now for the 100-400 II. Should be handy for close-ups of small subjects such as butterflies etc. (or rattlesnakes!)

I use Arca-Swiss quick release system with my tripods and monopods. The 100-400 II's tripod mounting foot doesn't lend itself to an A-S mounting plate (plus seems a little risky design to me). There are at least three companies manufacturing replacement feet for the lens, with built-in Arca-Swiss dovetails... Really Right Stuff, Kirk Photo and Hejnar Photo. I ended up installing the latter, which seems excellent and more secure than the original. It also gives a bit bigger grip "handle" to carry the lens.

I also installed a LensCoat, which I've had on some other large lenses for as long as fifteen years and really like. However, on the 100-400 II the neoprene cover has a whole lot more small pieces and I'm not sure I care for it. I may try using some double-stick tape to better secure it in a few places. It does tone down the noticeable and intimidating "big white" lens a bit.

Both 100-400 are not IF or "internal focusing" lenses... That means they extend in length considerably when zoomed. This changes their balance a bit if using them on a tripod or monopod... it's most noticeable (but manageable) if using them on a gimbal mount.

I think both also are varifocal zooms. I know the Mk II is. This is fairly common among modern auto focus zooms, and simply means they don't maintain focus when zoomed (parfocal zooms do, but are more complex. critical to calibrate and tend to be more expensive). This is most noticeable at close distances with the 100-400 II... But also isn't any problem at all when using AI Servo focus AF mode, since that will immediately correct for any loss of focus (so fast you won't notice on 7DII... other cameras may vary). If using One Shot AF, one needs to remember to re-focus after zooming any varifocal lens.

Both lenses use 77mm filters and are relatively "good light" f4.5-5.6 (a high-ISO capable camera will offset this). The Mark II maintains f5 up close to 300mm.

The hood supplied with the 100-400 II has a little sliding "door" on the under-side, to give easier access to a rotating filter such as a Circular Polarizer, so it's not necessary to remove the hood to adjust the filter. Haven't used that yet (the LensCoat covers it) and not sure if I will very much. Long teles like this I just don't tend to use with filters very often.

Overall, I'm happy with the 100-400mm Mk II. It seems an impressively capable lens, though I'm still learning to use and get accustomed to it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

It is not designed to be push/pull - but it can be done !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Just so every one knows, they ARE internal focus - but they are not INTERNAL ZOOM - like ALL the 70-200's are internal zoom. The Canon 200-400 is also internal zoom - if you can afford it - and also the Sigma 100-300 f4.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

In common use the term "IF" refers to both internal (or "inner") focusing and internal zooming.

In other words, a "non-IF" lens extends in length either when focused, or when zoomed (if the lens is a zoom), or both.

An "IF" lens doesn't extend and change length at all when focused or, in the case of a zoom, when zoomed.

Easier than also having to use "IZ", too, and splitting hairs over the differences, I suppose.

IF can be desirable for a several reasons, including maintaining balance a bit better in use. IF lenses also can be a more rigid, one-piece barrel design and may be more easily sealed for dust and moisture resistance. However, IF design adds to the lens' size and complexity... and usually means a higher price (such as the $11,000 EF 200-400/4L Teleconverter).

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

[quote=amfoto1]
Easier than also having to use "IZ", too, and splitting hairs over the differences, I suppose.

The differences are significant ........and yes, you should use IZ to correctly discuss this.

wer224 Loc: Bergen county NewJersey

Hi i do own the original lens sometimes I think the focusing could be sharper but that may be me and my own lack of skill. the thing that I don't like about version 1 is the push pull collar to zoom in and out, yes you can snug the locking ring down but when the lens hangs down it slides out sometimes with a pretty large bang if I'm paying attention. version 2 is a twist to zoom.i have the 24/70L &the 16/35L they are both twist to zoom so much better my opinion. I'm itching to sell ver1 and get version 2 myself but really can't justify the cost of upgrading when I still need the 70/200 this is my dilemma also the version 1 or 2 good luck

g8rfan1942 Loc: Ormond Beach Fl

I was on a budget and ended up buying the Canon EF100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM used for $ 900.00 and it was in like new condition. I am quite happy with it as it is much lighter than my Tamron 150mm-600mm which I found difficult to use since I have arthritis and hand holding it was tough. Since the Canon didn't have the reach of the Tamron, I bought (also used) a Canon 1.4 extender which works extremely well with the lens in good lighting conditions. I shoot mainly wildlife, birds in particular, and find the image quality to be excellent. Both of my Canon cameras are crop sensor so as another poster mentioned, I don't have any issues with the edges. I bought both the lens and the extender from B&H and just before posting here, I checked their site and saw that they currently have two used ones for around what I paid for mine. If you've decided to get the lens, my advice would be to jump on line and pull the trigger on one of them before they disappear. The good thing about buying from B&H is that they stand behind what they sell so if you don't like it, you can return it and get a refund. Another bonus is that if you live anywhere in the US except New York, they ship for free and you won't pay any sales tax. Let us know what you decide to do.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Thank you Alan for this review. It is clear, concise, and complete.