boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I am considering buying (at a very good discount) the original 100-400L lens. I know it's a push/pull zoom, and it gets good reviews. Any opinions regarding this lens will be very much appreciated.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

A friend of mine has one. He has also used my 100-400 L II and has noticed the better image quality. Not that the original is bad. It's just not as good as the II from everything I have heard. The original is a very good lens but as I understand it the biggest difference is at the outer edges of the image. If you are shooting with a crop sensor body, such as a 7D, you may not even see much of a difference.
If the price is good then I doubt you will be disappointed in the original, since it is only in comparison to the II that it seems to come up a bit short.

Balboa Loc: NJ

I had one for a couple of years. Was a bad design in my opinion. Bought, the new version and among other considerations it just has a nicer feel to it!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have owned both lenses. I was pleased with the original 100-400 and had it several years.
I got the MII because it had features like ultra close focus that no other lens in it's class has, faster focus and better IS.
That said the MI version is heads and shoulders above most of its peers including current lenses. It is very sharp and well made. If it has not been abused it will serve you well. I actually like the push pull zoom feature very well.
If the price is right get the lens and enjoy it. Make sure the Hood comes with it.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I will second the Mk II is a bit better. But I owned a Mk I and it was very good also and as stated on a crop sensor the IQ is nearly the same. The AF and IS on the Mk II is better but the older one is better than many lenses I have used. One of my reasons for moving to the Mk II was the 3' focusing, I do a lot of butterfly and other bugs hand held in the yard so the closer I can get the better.

I know two guys (one manages a camera store) who prefer the push-pull of the Mk I for following moving subjects where you need to change the zoom fast. They both use crop sensors.

I own three bodies, 5DIV, 7DII and 80D. My 100-400 stays on the 7DII with a pistol grip for hand held birds or butterflies, the 80D is on a Tamron 150-600 G2 on a tripod and gimbal head for set piece work and the 5DIV either has a wide angle, 24-105L or gets swapped to one of the long lenses when I want max IQ. I sometimes wish I had not traded the Mk I since I would then have a long lens for each body or to let my wife use with her T6s.

Here is a shot with my Mk I on a 7DII, about 20-25 feet hand held. That IQ is just fine with me, I would not feel deprived if I was still using the Mk I.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

My experience with older lenses is they have more variability the older the manufacture date. I had a great copy of the original 100-400L. I've had other L-series lenses of similar age where one copy would be unexceptionable and the next a keeper when shopping from used models. The difference may have been how the lenses were kept / treated over the years, but the literature points to improvements in the consistency of manufacturing over the years, where today is much better overall.

If you can find a 100-400 in the $600 - $800 range that that has clean glass, is relatively dust free inside, and sharp when tested, you have found a great lens at a great price. But paying more might be money better spent on a newer model of a different lens. Be sure it has the original tripod collar and hood as well.

The 100-400 had a long production run where the "same" lens actually experienced subtle internal manufacture improvements. If you really wanted to dive deep, you'd get the manufacture date codes from an internet source and check the code on the candidate lens as one of the several things to evaluate about the lens in addition to the price.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I appreciate the suggestions. I shoot with the 7d. I think I will definately spring for the lens. Might even post a few shots. Again, thanks for the help.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A great lens for zooming BIF ! Does not play well with Extenders or filters. The ease of zooming tends to wear out the internal mechanics which tends to deteriorate the correct optical properties. The air pumping tends to exacerbate this also. Bottom line is high usage needs Canon maintenance service for optimum optical performance.
.

Bipod

That's surprising. Linear zooms have fewer moving groups and are mechanically
much simpler than rotating zooms.

In a linear zoom, all moving groups move together. But in a rotating zoom, each
moving group moves independently--it's attached to cam follower that urns inside
a cam slot cut into the zoom barrel. That makes for a lot of complex-shaped
slots and a lot of bearing surfaces.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I do not agree ....especially with the lens in question .

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I knew there was something I forgot, and imagemeister brought it up.
Does not play well with filters, in fact the wisdom is don't put any kind of filter on it. Use the hood to protect the lens.

I have read several articles talking about it where someone who thought they got a lemon was surprised at the IQ improvement when someone else told them to take that protective filter off.

Bipod

OK.....that's your right, by all means. But would you happen to have a reason?

Bipod

Well, if your read it in several (uncited, unquoted) articles, then it must be true!

But did you happen to notice whether they were talking about coated or uncoated filters?
Cause like, um, it matters.. And did they offer any explanation of what's going on?

And it sure makes me wonder why Tiffen, Hoya (Kenko Tokina), B+W, Heliopan, Carl Zeiss,
Nikon and Canon all continue to make UV filters. I really doubt that it's a big profit center for
Nikon, Canon or Carl Zeiss AG.

If you happen to remember what publications those "articles" were in, I'd be interested to hear.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Gee, I didn't know you were grading me or imagemeister on our research and footnotes. But ask me if I care much.
I have read the "does play well with filters" in several online sites which I did not take notes about. But I have a memory that squirrels away a lot of general trivia etc. and I am a READER - my Nook e-reader has over 1500 books, magazines and other items in it's archives with B&N - from just over 10 years worth of e-reading material.
No in depth that I remember or explanation why though one guy speculated it had to do with the older lens coating tech of the Mk I, just the fact it was so. Another speculated about the greater variation from one lens to another with the older manufacturing tech. And I tried a few experiments when I owned a Mk I - that is what I found to be the case - the lens did not play well with filters. I did not lose as much IQ as some complained about but I lost some and I am a detail freak most of the time. I don't want to see just the vanes of a bird's feathers, I want to see the details of the mites on those feathers.

Actually in general I do not use filters since I switched over to digital. Just about everything the filters do can be done in PP software and putting that extra piece of glass on the front of a lens gives you two more surfaces to reflect, create flair etc. When I did film I did use filters - mostly UV with CP from time to time and I had set of B&W filters but seldom used them.

And I nor anyone else said don't use filters on other lenses, just the Mk I has been mentioned in this thread

amersfoort

I have both versions. I use the Mk II on a full frame camera and the Mk I on a cropped camera. Both are very fine lenses and to my eyes there is very little difference in the image quality. The Mk I is a little softer at the edges but since I nearly always crop the images it is no deal breaker. The Mk II does focus slightly faster.