vineyardman Loc: Florida

I’ve been looking at the Canon 100-400 “ll”. Seems there are some upgrades that put it a good notch above my100-400”L”, but I would like an opinion from those who have the “ll”as to is it worth the upgrade. I use the “L” I now have on both my 80D and my EOS R, mainly for “Blue Bird” photography.
Opinions appreciated.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's your money. It's your decision. It you let the UHH community spend your money, nothing you have will ever be good enough to their standards.

The new 100-400L II is sharper as well as having more effective IS support and probably more than anything else: is visually better when extended with the 1.4x III. I've been reworking some images over the past few days from the older 100-400L. The differences between the two lenses are there, even if subtle, where 'buying' more absolute image quality will be difficult to demonstrate without close inspection of images specifically designed to show a difference. Those other differences mentioned above make more of a difference between the two lenses.

vineyardman Loc: Florida

That’s all the information I need and was looking for CH _Canon.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I used the first edition for a few years and now the mk2. I could get by just fine with either but the mk2 is a bit sharper out towards the edges, better IS, a bit faster AF and as I understand it it is one of the lenses designed be paired with the 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders. I use the 1.4x with my 5DIV, 7DII and 80D all of which will AF at f/8.0. Your R body will AF at f/11 which is what the lenses becomes with a 2x extender.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The L is a push pull that had a reputation as a dust collector and is considered not as sharp as the II.
I have seen outstanding images from both. The II focuses closer. You should be able to pick up an L for less outlay than for the II. Both are available "used" many places.
I shoot with folks who have shot with both and they all now shoot with the II.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I bought the 1st version, used from KEH a coupla years ago for under $ 700. It's a very good, maybe not perfect lens. My avatar was shot with it. The push pull takes getting used to but after that I love it.

Vlemasters

I had both. I tried a 1.4 tc with the first one and found that I did not like the quality compared to just cropping the lens shot. Got the second version and now use the 1.4 tc almost all the time. Much better quality with the teleconverter installed.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well stated ! .......the II focuses closer - if that matters, but the I is faster zooming which can matter especially for birds in flight. Because the one pumps more air and has special internal bearing surfaces for zooming optical elements, it requires more cleaning/maintenance over time for optimum performance. The sharpness difference without the extender is very, very subtle.
.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have owned both.
Found the upgrade well worth it.
The close focus capability of the II was the real kicker that got me to get it.
IQ is better and faster focus as well.
Finally all around there is nothing on the market in it's class by any maker any brand.
Yes, it is good.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Everything about the II is better than the I. I had the original and have many images taken with that lens. I sold it when I got a large prime lens and saw how much sharper my images were. But then Canon came out with the Mk II and I waited to see the results. Carrying a large prime lens around isn't the easiest thing in the world because it's large and heavy.

I attended a lecture on African Safari and the guy the was selling spots to go on a trip he was repping used a 600mm prime Canon lens up until he purchased a Mk II. He was so happy with the quality of the images with the Mk II that he no long brings his 600mm prime on safari. He showed many of the examples using both the 600mm prime and the 100-400 Mk II. Both were awesome. So I bought a Mk II and I am not disappointed.

A friend and I went to Safari Park (it's a zoo) and she had her old Mk I and I had my Mk II. I suggested we trade lenses off and on during the day so she couldn't check out the results when she gets home and compare. She didn't have to wait until getting home to decide that she liked everything about the Mk II and her mind was made up. She ordered one and sold the Mk I. You won't be disappointed. Trust me.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

If the mark I does a great job for you stay with it. I used that lens for years and was extremely happy with it but I changed to the mark II because of the varied uses for that lens I wanted out of it. The Mark II lenses ability to focus close is to me the factor that caused me to switch. As I said the mark I is a terrific lens and is it worth changing to the mark II depends on the type of photography you do. For birds and BIF, it would be hard to see the difference even if the IS and focusing speed is supposed to be better.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I never bought the original 100-400mm simply because I'm not a fan of push/pull zooms. I know some folks really love that design, especially for fast action shooting such as birds in flight or air shows. I just don't care for it, perhaps just because older zooms using that design disappointed me. Some folks seem to agree with me. But others don't. Different strokes...!

I borrowed a friend's first version, push/pull for a short time and liked the "reach", found it very "hand holdable", with good focus performance and decent image quality... but just couldn't get comfortable with it (though it's a far better lens than many earlier push/pull zooms).

The first, push/pull version is one of the five Canon lenses that require you turn off IS when there's no movement for it to correct, such as when locked down on a tripod. If you don't turn it off, the IS can go into sort of a feedback loop where it actually causes image shake blur. Most other and more recent IS lenses auto-detect this condition and turn IS off automatically. (The other four lenses are the EF 28-135mm, original EF 75-300mm which introduced IS, and original 24-105L... all now discontinued.... and the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM that's still in production.)

Not that this mattered very much to me, since that lens (and the four other ones) lends itself to handheld use.... wouldn't be on a tripod very much, if I were using it.

One of the other interesting, but minor foibles of the original push/pull zoom was how it works with filters. Not having used it extensively, I can only repeat that a lot of regular users have reported it tends to go soft when a filter is used on it.... that it's a noticeably sharper lens without any filter. Even good quality, multi-coated UV or clear protection filters seem to make it "go soft".

A couple years ago I bought the II and have continued to be very impressed with it. The IS is the "modern type" and probably about a stop more effective. It's also got the new "instant IS" Mode 3, first seen on the "II" series super telephotos. The 100-400 II is about a half lb. heavier than the original. And it's tripod ring isn't fully removable. But it's also been called "one of the best built zooms ever made" and "over-engineered" for durability. After a lot of use, I've had no problems with it at all.

I've also used it a bit with a quality 1.4X teleconverter (Canon "II") and the combo is excellent, although it's also f/8, so good light is needed.

There's a thorough and honest review of the 100-400L II here:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

You can compare image quality yourself at that site too:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Those test shots pretty much confirm what everyone says.... the II is sharper. There's not a lot of difference at the center of the frame, but the II is sharper in the corners on full frame.... with both lenses wide open. Using either lens on a crop camera shows less difference, since the weakest (though still good) part of the original lens' images are cropped off.

And you can compare the specs of the two lenses closely, here:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=972&LensComp=113

Some nuances that might not be obvious at first.... The II has more aperture blades and they're curved now. This makes for a little nicer background blur. The odd number of blades also makes for more interesting "sun stars", on the rare occasion you might make one (18 point star versus 8 point).

The 100-400mm II's tripod ring is permanently installed, but its "foot" can be removed. That doesn't save much weight. If you use Arca-Swiss style quick release system, I recommend getting one of the replacement feet for the lens produced by RRS, Kirk, Hejnar Photo, and a few others. The original Canon foot for the lens is cool looking, but has poor anti-twist qualities when it's paired up with a standard Arca lens plate. The replacement feet have the Arca compatible dovetail built right it, plus they can be more securely mounted (with a hex wrench, rather than a thumb screw).

I don't recommend any of the camouflage covers for either 100-400mm. Both lenses are NOT internal zooming, change length when focal length is adjusted, so much of the lens can't be covered. With the two ring version, especially, there are also just too many moving parts along the length of the barrel (zoom ring, focus ring, plus a zoom tension adjuster ring)... the covers are impractical and much of them need to be glued in place. I tried a camo cover on my lens when I got it (I have them on other lenses).... but took it off a short time later when I saw all the "issues".

While it's no slow poke by any means, the 100-400mm II isn't my fastest focusing lens. I have several primes where AF is nearer "instantaneous". It was so long ago that I used the original push/pull I couldn't compare them for focus speed. I'll take the word of other responses here.

If you like the design of the original lens, it's still in good condition, working well and you mostly just hand hold it.... there isn't huge reason to "upgrade".

But if you want a little bit better IS, sharpest possible image from a zoom, closer focusing ability... slightly faster lens (maintains f/5 through approx. 320mm)... or just like a two ring zoom design better.... then maybe the II is for you. It is one of the best telephoto zooms anyone has ever made, IMO.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The II is unquestionably better.