ps5039 Loc: Avondale AZ/Raised in Iowa

Is the Canon 100-400 L II worth the extra $600-700? I'm thinking of buying the II. I'm not a pro but take extreme pride in my wildlife photos. Can the above average photographer see the difference.

ps5039 Loc: Avondale AZ/Raised in Iowa

Canon 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS II USM EF Mount Lens vrs Canon 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM EF Mount Lens

sherry roberson Loc: Rome, georgia

I think it would be well worth the money.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

You ask a question few others do. Keep in mind that the 1st version was around 15+ years before the version II appeared. It has legions of fans/users who swear by it. Version II isn't as old but is winning it's fair share of fans. Each of us has our own criteria and only you know what is acceptable. An item is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. Will you pay $600-700? You tell us, it's your call.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

The 2 has a fair amount of improvements over the 1. Mainly in the realm of AF speed, IS (now 3 position switch), twist instead of push-pull zoom and corner IQ. On an APS-C body the corner IQ means nothing. The AF is faster, but the 1 was faster than the competition and is still faster than many other lenses. The IS is a bit better and the third position is a "nice to have" (it only turns IS on as the picture is taken, no more "jitters" in the view finder).

I just traded my mark 1 a year after I got a mark 2. I kept it for a backup and so I could use the 100-400 on both my bodies. Well I found I did not like hauling two bodies with 100-400s on them and hadn't needed a backup. So my 100-400 mk 1, Tamron 150-600 and a 55-250 got traded and I now have a pile of store credit (2/3 the price of a 6DII body or 40% of the price of a 5DIV body for upgrading my FF body)

Long and short of it. Yes the 2 is better than the 1, but as someone said "A lot of wildlife photographers made a living with that lens for many years. If I had to use a 1 I might miss the 2 a bit but could get by just fine since I was using it on my 7DII and the corner IQ increase didn't matter. If you can afford the 2 get it. Or for the same money you can get a 1 and a Canon 1.4x III. I used the 1.4x III with my mark 1 and now with my mark II. The image IQ is still very good as long as I do my part. You do need a body that will AF at f/8.0 for the combo to work without having to manually focus.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

The basic answer to almost any photography question is:
It all depends:
I currently have & have been using the "Old" version of this lens for the past 15yrs -- with 5 Canon cameras -- Film: Rebel 2000; Elan 7, EOS 3 -- Digital: 5DmkII & 5DS --- I'm currently replacing this fine lens with the newer MkII version -- Not because the new version is sharper -- Not because the new version does not employ the old "dust" pump action -- But because the new version offers 4 stop IS vs the old versions 2 stop IS ---
If your current cameras sensor is not 50mps as mine is (increased display of camera shake when hand holding) then the 2 stop IS is more then acceptable -- I never had issues with the image quality -- though I may now with the new version see that -- & I learned to like the "pump action"
In my personal opinion --- The old lens is a great lens --- 600 / $700 is a lot of money that could be used to purchase far more productive gear

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

To be concise: yes

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I owned the original 100-400 for several years. Sold it when the version II came out. The II is a far superior lens to the pretty darn good original lens. Better optics, better faster focus, better environmental sealing, more advanced central processor and better image stabilization, and it works great with the 1.4 III teleconverter.
Yes it is well worth the extra cost.

ps5039 Loc: Avondale AZ/Raised in Iowa

LOL. I knew after I started this thread what I would hear as I've read so many like it. Guess those of us that start these are hoping someone will make our decision for us lol. I'm trading in several lenses that I don't use so the $ hit won't be so bad. I was tilting towards the II so guess Ill get it. Thanks everyone for your comments, enjoy hearing other more educated comments.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Next Time -- by the way -- You have received my last response
Don't hold back information -- Provide all the facts
Why even ask the question
LOL

ps5039 Loc: Avondale AZ/Raised in Iowa

I know my bad. Apologize for that.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

Since you're spending big on an L lens anyway, you might as well spend the extra money and go all the way. You'd probably get over the extra $600-$700 once you start using the lens and see the results.

ps5039 Loc: Avondale AZ/Raised in Iowa

I did order the II, only live once thanks again everyone, the comment did help.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That's a substantial difference in price. Read reviews of the newer lens and comparisons of the two. Then decide if paying more will make a difference in your photography.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Canon+100-400mm+F%2F4.5-5.6+L+IS+II+vs+Canon+100-400mm+F%2F4.5-5.6+L+IS+USM&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS716US717&oq=Canon+100-400mm+F%2F4.5-5.6+L+IS+II+vs+Canon+100-400mm+F%2F4.5-5.6+L+IS+USM&aqs=chrome..69i57.3580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Good attitude!