Buying a used Canon 100-400 L
Nov 3, 2017 05:42:09 #
To me it would be...but you have to determine if it is the right lens and cost to you.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Nov 3, 2017 06:28:03 #
You can get a good used version I for about $1300 less than the version II. That is a huge price difference. The version I is a great lens. You won't regret it. The good news - if you get a good used version I and decide to upgrade in a year or two, you can sell it without a loss.
Nov 3, 2017 07:37:44 #
Yes it is worth the extra $. I replaced my version 1 with the version 2 and I use it so much more than the old one. The close focusing of this lens makes it more versatile. I use my 70-200 a lot less since getting this upgrade.
Nov 3, 2017 07:45:20 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
ps5039 wrote:
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.
YES and YES.
Nov 3, 2017 08:34:41 #
ps5039 wrote:
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.
I have some gear head friends that had the II and now the III that said it was very good. Personally I went for the III and while pricey, outstanding. And with a 1.4 extender still outstanding. There are times I need the 640MM for small or distant birds.
Nov 3, 2017 08:41:11 #
pithydoug wrote:
I have some gear head friends that had the II and now the III that said it was very good. Personally I went for the III and while pricey, outstanding. And with a 1.4 extender still outstanding. There are times I need the 640MM for small or distant birds.
Your friends aren't just gear heads, they're time travelers from the future as a 100-400L ver III does not exist today's world ... (nor any vIII of Canon's version 70-200 Ls)
Nov 3, 2017 08:49:00 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Your friends aren't just gear heads, they're time travelers from the future as a 100-400L ver III does not exist today's world ... (nor any vIII of Canon's version 70-200 Ls)
Sorry, you are correct I was caught in a time warp on the "I"s. I still stand that the I was good and II is even better.
Nov 3, 2017 08:49:08 #
I assumed he is talking about the TC III not the lens version...but maybe not...
CHG_CANON wrote:
Your friends aren't just gear heads, they're time travelers from the future as a 100-400L ver III does not exist today's world ... (nor any vIII of Canon's version 70-200 Ls)
Nov 3, 2017 09:01:17 #
pithydoug wrote:
Sorry, you are correct I was caught in a time warp on the "I"s. I still stand that the I was good and II is even better.
I agree too the 100-400 v I is dismissed too easily and too early from many discussions of lens options. But, if you have the resources for the new model, one should not make a price-based only decision between the two.
Nov 3, 2017 09:08:47 #
Szalajj
Loc: Salem, NH
ps5039 wrote:
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.
In one word YES
You will never regret the extra $600-$700 for the v.2 of the lens.
I briefly owned the v.1, and returned it.
The quality of the shots just wasn't there with the v.1 of the lens, and I worried about the trombone action damaging the lens mount on my camera body as it slid out with a slam and a thunk while I was carrying it around by the strap around my neck.
I now own the v.2 and I couldn't be happier about the quality of the shots it produces.
The v.2 is ideally suited for wildlife photography.
Nov 3, 2017 10:29:57 #
robertjerl wrote:
The 2 has a fair amount of improvements over the 1... (show quote)
I had the 100-400 MkI which I used on a 7d until they both were stolen over the Christmas-New Year holidays last. I then got a 7D Mark ii and the 100-400 Mk II lens which I have used since that time. I can only speak from my personal experience, but my personal opinions so closely parallel the foregoing remarks of 'robertjerl' that I see no need of further comment.
Nov 3, 2017 11:42:10 #
lhardister wrote:
I had the 100-400 MkI which I used on a 7d until they both were stolen over the Christmas-New Year holidays last. I then got a 7D Mark ii and the 100-400 Mk II lens which I have used since that time. I can only speak from my personal experience, but my personal opinions so closely parallel the foregoing remarks of 'robertjerl' that I see no need of further comment.
Well, that is a compliment, thanks.
I did forget just about the most important improvement from my point of view, I just don't think of it much. The close focusing distance (1/2 that of the mark 1). I often use the lens as a sub for a macro on butterflies etc, get to the minimum focus distance, zoom to 400 and then crop and enlarge the image. However the bugs all know Mr Murphy. The first time I was using it for a lady bug the little darling took off and landed on my knee, shooed it off so it landed on the camera and proceeded to dance around like it was chanting "Hee Hee, lets see you get a picture of me now Hot Shot!"
Nov 3, 2017 11:46:28 #
I have the II and it is one of the sharpest and most used lenses I own. I highly recommend it.
Nov 3, 2017 12:05:11 #
Nov 3, 2017 13:11:27 #
ps5039 wrote:
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.
If you do not shoot BIF, (speed of zoom with the I) and you are on full frame, and you want to use a TC, and you shoot a lot at slower shutter speeds ( less than 1/250) then the II is worth the extra money - IMO.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.