If you are all ready to buy the version II, sure to be at least 50% more, you can easily afford to buy the original in used condition (I got mine for around $1k), and then sell it toward the new II cost.
On the other hand, even if the original seems expensive, buy it, because the replacement will be far out of reach.
I have had and been disappointed in 2 of the 100-400s. I bought the new 70-200f2.8 and added a new 2x and love it. Much sharper (razor sharp) and no push/pull zoom which I hate. I would never buy a 100-400 again.
Mine was always crap until I put it on the 1D3 then suddenly it was a thing of beauty. Also works well on 5D3 and 1D4. For the price its pretty good. Im selling lots of my gear off as Im not shooting weddings anymore but Im keeping that one.
Re: the push-pull zoom; while I realize that these things are a matter of personal taste and acclimatization, I would strongly suggest not writing off the excellent 100-400L for this reason. Personally, I *love* the push-pull zoom, and after having used it for a while, I hate having to go back to zoom-rings. It ends up feeling so natural to zoom in and out -- if you want to move in closer to the subject, move your hand out closer to it. When you want to pull back, pull your hand back. Yes, it takes a little getting used to, but I got over that hump very quickly.
On my 5D3, I took a picture at f8 of the eureka tower from work ~1.3 miles away away. At full magnification on the LCD, I could just about make out people standing on the observation deck.
About 4 years ago I had the same personal quandary.
Should I buy the current 100-400 or wait for the new one, that was supposedly coming out.
After a year of waiting, I finally got my 100-400.
I've had 3 years of happy shooting and I'm STILL waiting for the new one.
The push-pull annoyed my at first, but now I actually like it.
My personal experience - the 100-400 is better than the 70-200f2.8 IS ii with extender.
arbitrage wrote:
Rumours of the 100-400 II have been around for years. Probably better to just get the current one and enjoy it. And keep in mind that the new one will easily be priced at the $3000 mark or more.
CW100 wrote:
the reason the 100-400 has been around for so long is because the optics are so good. Canon can only upgrade the IS system and when they do that expect to pay $$$
I reckon they could upgrade the AF motor too. This lens was quite slow on a down-market camera and significantly faster on a pro camera (implying the camera really does make a big difference) but it remains slower than other modern zooms regardless of camera.
The irritating thing is that Canon could upgrade the IS and AF performance without needing any redesign of the optics just by upgrading the motors and controllers, so it would be very cheap and easy for them and they'd sell a bunch to people who have been waiting for those upgrades. Better optics is feasible and would be a welcome bonus but that would cost more to implement and perhaps have a smaller market. Even so, it would make a great mark III.
If I was boss of Canon I would be looking for a new boss of marketing because some upgrades are just no-brainers and yet they still don't do them.
Alan321 wrote:
The irritating thing is that Canon could upgrade the IS and AF performance without needing any redesign of the optics just by upgrading the motors and controllers, so it would be very cheap and easy for them and they'd sell a bunch to people who have been waiting for those upgrades. Better optics is feasible and would be a welcome bonus but that would cost more to implement and perhaps have a smaller market.
Somehow I doubt an IS and AF upgrade would be cheap and if it's going to be significantly more expensive then the old version why wouldn't you improve the optics as well. Canon knows it will be immediately compared to other upgraded lenses. Given Canon's pricing model lately peoples expectations are running very high.
Thanks for all the information regarding my questions.
I was able to order a refurbished 100-400L from Canon Direct for the on sale and should be here this week.
I have read on the internet that many users recommend not to put a UV filter on this lens as it can distort images. I have UV filters on all my lens including my 70-200L f4 and have never had any problems.
Any comments on using a UV filter on this lens?
ncampbell21 wrote:
Thanks for all the information regarding my questions.
I was able to order a refurbished 100-400L from Canon Direct for the on sale and should be here this week.
I have read on the internet that many users recommend not to put a UV filter on this lens as it can distort images. I have UV filters on all my lens including my 70-200L f4 and have never had any problems.
Any comments on using a UV filter on this lens?
I stopped using a filter due to a very very rare occurrence of weird bokeh. Just use the hood 100% of the time and a "protection" filter is not needed.
I frequently use UV filters, but on the 100-400 I have avoided it based on the test results of several reputable photographers. I don't recall exactly the conclusion, but the difficulty seemed to be the result of the flat filter giving a "bounce back" against the sensor, IIRC. Anyhow, I've had great sharp results without filters, and always use the monster hood, so no real chance of damage. If I was confronting salt spray or some other exterior condition, I would use a filter anyway -- IQ would be going down regardless.
I feel more comfortable with filters on my lenses, so I've been switching to the Hoya Pro clear protective filters, multi-coated but maximum light transmission. My lenses ride around in my pack without hoods and often the caps have come off, I figure better the filter than the front element. After several years use, the polarizer on my 24-105, which has seen the most action, is looking the worse for wear and in need of replacement.
surf monkey wrote:
One warning about use:
Do not try to zoom while the zoom ring is tight - it causes wear on the gaskets.
Fully tight is surely bad to zoom it but how tight is too tight? Obviously the zoom ring was made adjustable for a reason. For tiny birds, where they fly in, up, wherever, I like to keep it about 1/4th tight. Tight enough that extending down or up wont collapse or telescope it right away.
I wonder what others do, and what the life expediency is on the gaskets when used 1/4th tight.
I never use a UV or protective filter on any of my lenses. I might consider one if I was operating in a really harsh environment like the Sahara desert or on a boat in sea-spray.
