WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

I would love to be able to just whip out the checkbook and order the latest and greatest. But life is very good and patients is still a virtue.

I am considering the purchase of a common 100-400 4-5.6 type I or II. Obviously type II should be improved over the type I or there would not be a type II. I understand the AF was improved, I'm guessing a good deal improved.

So while I'm waiting for the expendable cash bucket to fill a bit more I am wondering if the more experienced gaming us would care to offer some thoughts on the +s and -s of the choice.
The cost of one over the other, depending on who has it for or sale can be significant. I realize you get what you pay for, no free lunch, etc. etc.. So I want to avoid if possible, making a purchase and wondering later about my discussion.

I am primarily considering just the 100-400 canon BUT those Sigma and Tameron 150-600 s do seem worth adding to the discussion tree as well.

I shoot wildlife 90% or more of the time , very often from a bot but winter is rushing at us. A lot is hand held with my added surgical grip but I am working more and more with the tripod when ashore.

And, my only camera for now is a Canon t3i (cropped sensor) already slow on autofocus lock.

Thanks
Bill

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You can see my testing here - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-559479-1.html

The IS is better on the II - IF - you are shooting stationary subjects with lower shutter speeds. The CLOSE focus is better on the II -IF- you like doing CLOSE-ups. The II works better with the Canon 1.4X extenders -IF- you like being @560mm .
The version I works faster (push-pull zooming) which is especially helpful for finding your target (BIF). But, also because of the push pull, the I needs more cleaning and maintenance to operate optimally.
.

Haydon

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Yes, af was improved, by quite a margin, as was the IS implementation! The minimum focus distance is greatly reduced, but most importantly, the image quality is now good, very good, which could not be said about the first version, it was just a so-so-lens at best. The new version is a top notch lens!

bleirer

The Tamron 100-400 has some nice reviews, too, and at $700 the price is right. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-100-400mm-f-4.5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

BB4A

The 100-400mm L IS II is my main walk-about lens; I only use it handheld, and I've shot lots of different concepts with it (alternative landscapes to near-macro insects).

My personal opinion? This is the best lens Canon has produced so far; which might be the reason why I have two in my (very small) lens collection. I've completed a lot of commissions with this lens, and had a lot of fun using it, too.

The only question I have for you is, you might want to consider replacing your chosen body, for something that will allow you to get the best out of your new lens? The 7D Mk II is excellent value for the money right now, and has the AF systems and speed to complement this lens.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I wouldn't choose the version II for the faster AF or better IS (which it is, but the version I is not slow). I would spend the 2x price for the IQ, focusing distance, and IF you prefer a “twist” to a push-pull zoom. Frankly, I think you might instead consider the MK I and using the difference in price to upgrade your body as has been suggested. The combination of the MK I plus a 7D2 or an 80D might yield better overall system performance than a MKII on your T3i. Just something to consider...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The Canon 100-400 II is an excellent lens and when combined with the 1.4X extender III you have an amazing combination, I highly recommend your stretching your budget for the Mark II, I have owned them both, actually still have the Mark II, it is a wonderful lens.

rick_n_wv Loc: Charleston WV

I like birds as well as wildlife. I have not used the version 1 but love the version 2. Close focus and really sharp. Played with a 1.4 against a Tamron 600 last weekend and am getting ready to order the 1.4, it was that good.

400mm

(Download)

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thanks,
A body upgrade is part of the master plan. I'm biding my time watching the 90d. And am keeping the 7d II and the 80d in the mix until I eventually pull a trigger (I guess in this context press the shutter release)

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thanks

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thanks Trix

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Rick,
Great morning dove.

We were out chasing eagles yesterday. In 3 hours saw 5 individual eagles within photographic range it could have been 6. Shot over 480 images using my older sigma 120-400. I have been culling them out and think I have maybe 25% usable and possible 6-10 good. Me, my time of day, direction of Sun vs target, lack of skill, being on a moving boat probably account for 25-50% of the culls. But in way to many my focus ring was dead on (Proof on Canon DPPA) but the image is out of focus. And not from movement. In maybe a dozen the focus ring was completely off the bird-sometimes on something over a foot behind or a clear sky, and the images are sharp, go figure. So I know I have some equipment issues.

Thanks for your thoughts. I just don't want to BUT the I and a year later decide the II should have been.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thank you,
I just checked out your link and test. Very helpful.