Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Tele Convertors limit the focusing, really autofocusing, because they reduce the aperture of the combination. If you put a 2.0 TC on a F4 lens you now have an F8 maximum aperture lens. Many cameras cannot auto focus at this small aperture, or can only use a limited set of the autofocus points at this small aperture. You can still manually focus but that is often hard to do unless your subject is stationary. Not often the case for birds.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Regis Loc: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho

Spend a little more money and buy the Canon 100-400 II. It's superior to the older version. The newer version will focus down to 3 feet.

pahtspix

I own the Tamron 150-600mm G2 and have it coupled to a Nikon D500..The BEST birding combination I've owned!!..Check out images from in FB on the "Tamron 150-600mm Owners Group"..I think you'll be amazed..I'm getting incredibly sharp images WIDE open at F6.3! Be sure to look at images from Steve Shaluta, Larry Venus and Lewis Kemper!!
Eddie (pahtspix)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You do not say what body you are using ....

The best case scenario for this lens would be a high pixel density crop frame sensor - that way you could do reasonably good cropping and use pixel enlargement if necessary. The crop body would also be cropping the weakest part of this lens - away from the center of the lens.

This lens tends to have maintenance issues with heavy use due to it's mechanical complexity - so used ones are a bit of a gamble.

On a low MP full frame camera, you would be better off with one of the 150-600mm solutions IMO.

Retired fat guy with a camera Loc: Colorado

How about a prime 400? You will likely have it zoomed to the max, most of the time. Primes are sharper and more dust proof.

agillot

it depend on the sensor , full size or cropped .i use a cropped sensor [ D300] , and the minimum for birds is around 600mm , so 600mm on a cropped is like shooting with a 900mm on a full size sensor .i use 2 lenses , one 400 fixed , for bird in flight , and a 800 for subject not moving [ lens too heavy to hand hold or focus ] . So if you have a full size sensor you would use a 600 for flying birds , and 1200 for far birds .

agillot

just to add , today , if i had to buy a lens , the tamron G2 [$ 1400 ]would be it .if money is no problem , the same in nikon top of the line around $ 12k , but , the pictures are amazing .

wilfredmike

speters, is spot on. His advice is probably the best advice you could get. Most of us want lens to be sharp above all else. The new version is absolutely sharper than the old, and has much improved IS.

sergio

I have the latest with the latest extenders. Quoting from the camera manual: "Canon 7Dii features 65 AF points spread across a significant portion of the frame, with especially wide horizontal coverage. All of these AF points are cross-type (when using lenses with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster), with the center AF point capable of high-precision, dual cross-type focusing with wider aperture (f/2.8 and faster) lenses. Additionally, the center point is capable of focusing with lenses (or lens/teleconverter combinations) as slow as f/8".
In other words, with the extender only the center point is usable but the autofocus is otherwise working well and quick.
And reading some other comments: I did not notice a large difference between the old and the G2 lens.

dyximan

In my previous reply I miss spoke I believe it's at Tamron 18 to 400 not 100 to 400 relatively new just coming out for pre-order due in your hand towards the end of July

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Both the Canon 100-400mm are excellent lenses.... The newer II (2014) is a little sharper, more sturdily built (the guys at Lensrentals.com, who love to take lenses apart just to see what's inside, called the II "the best-built zoom they've ever seen"), is closer focusing, uses a more standard two-ring zoom design, and is about 1/2 lb. heavier than the original "push/pull" model from 1998.

Folks shooting birds in flight (BIF) and air shows often like the original push/pull zoom for it's fast handling. Other folks (myself included), prefer the more traditional separate zoom and focus ring design of the II. To lighten it a little more while hand-held, the tripod mounting ring of the original is completely removable (hinged to allow removal while the lens is still mounted on a camera). The II's tripod mounting ring is not fully removable... only the "foot" can be removed. And there's a fairly healthy aftermarket of replacement "feet" with built in Arca-style bevel and more secure mounting (offered by Kirk Photo, RRS and Hejnar Photo).The OEM foot is shaped in a way that makes it difficult to mount standard Arca-type lens plates.

Both lenses come with a nice, deep lens hood. And both lenses have a zoom tension adjuster that can be used to fine tune the "feel" of the mechanism or to lock the lens at a setting and prevent "zoom creep" when carrying it. Theya also both use a 77mm filter. One idiosyncrasy of the original version 100-400mm is that it doesn't "play well" with filters. Many times users who were less than happy with their lenses' sharpness found it was actually much better than they though, simply by removing any "protection" filter they'd installed on it. For some reason, the push/pull lens just doesn't seem to work well with even high quality, multi-coated filters. The II also has an improved aperture made up of 9 curved blades that form a more perfect circle than the 8 blades of the original. Both lenses use fluorite and ultra low dispersion elements.

And both have effective image stabilization.... though the II's is a newer version that's rated for 3-4 stops of assistance (versus 2-3 stops). The II also has "Mode 3" IS, which previously was only found on the Mark II super telephotos costing far more. Mode 3 limits stabilization to only occur during exposure, which suggests it's an extremely fast system to be able to steady an image in the tiny fraction of a second that a shutter is open. The newer II's IS also is self-detecting, so doesn't need to be turned off when the lens is used on a tripod. The IS of the push/pull version needs to be turned off any time the lens is locked down and there's no chance of movement.

There appear to still be lots of brand new first version 100-400mm available at significant discount. Previous response mentions a "common design flaw" failure with well-used 100-400mm. I don't know what's being referenced... but that sort of thing can possibly become a problem getting repaired with a discontinued lens, if necessary spare parts are no longer available. A somewhat notorious example was the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8, the autofocus drive of which was no longer repairable just a couple years after the lens was discontinued. But, it depends upon exactly what's needed, how much stock of spare parts exists and how rapidly those supplies are depleted, or if the part is still being used in other lenses and remains available, or possibly whether or not a third party manufacturer steps up to produce replacement parts for the lens in the future. The 100-400mm push/pull sold widely for over 15 years, has been popular enough that if some part commonly fails, a solution will be found even if Canon themselves no longer offer repairs.

Used on an APS-C crop sensor camera, 400mm might be long enough for a lot of subjects. But there's a saying among birders, in particular, that "there's no such thing as a 'long enough' telephoto lens!" Depending upon the particular birds and how close you can get, there may be times you would wish for some longer focal lengths. The 100-400 II seems to work pretty well with a quality 1.4X teleconverter. I don't know if the same can be said about the original version of the lens.

Oh, and Sigma is coming out with a new, especially compact 100-400mm that will sell for around $800. At that price I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near as well built as the two Canon L-series. The Sigma isn't in stores yet and I haven't seen any in-depth reviews. I did notice that it doesn't include and has no means to add a tripod mounting ring.... so it appears to be intended primarily for hand-held use.

Here's a comparison of the three: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_EF_100-400mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_USM_Lens_vs_Canon_EF_100-400mm_f_4.5-5.6L_IS_II_USM_Lens_vs_Sigma_100-400mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Contemporary_Lens_for_Canon_EF/BHitems/162616-USA_1092632-REG_1321312-REG

And, yes, a new Tamron 18-400mm 22X zoom has just been announced. That's a different type of zoom.... a "do-it-all"... which I wouldn't expect to come close to the image quality and performance of a 4X telezoom like any of the 100-400mm.

canondave1 Loc: Houston, TX

I bought the 100-400mm I lens 3 years ago and have thoroughly enjoyed it. To me, it's quite sharp.

djlouden Loc: Ocala, Florida

The 100-400 was the first 'expensive' lens I bought some years ago. It has served me well from my early days with the Rebel XT until i bought the version II. Grandson now uses the other one which is on loan? to him.

You won't be disappointed if your budget only allows version one but if you can stretch a bit go for the newer II.

Happy shooting

jj56 Loc: Londonderry, NH

What is the design flaw you speak of?
I've just purchased a "lightly used" copy of the Canon 100-400 ver 1 lens.

globetrekker Loc: Bend, OR

Thanks, AM. And thanks everyone for the feedback. Pretty sure I'll go with the old version of the Canon 100-400.