100-400 mm Canon L: I have an older model 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6 push/pull lens that I have a 1.4X extender on. I was wondering if there's enough difference to upgrade the the newest...

marycar53 Loc: Tuscumbia Al

I have an older model 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6 push/pull lens that I have a 1.4X extender on. I was wondering if there's enough difference to upgrade the the newest version?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If money is not a concern, upgrade. You can sell the older lens and keep the teleconverter. If money is tight then don't upgrade; there's nothing wrong with the older lens, although the newer lens is smaller and quite nice.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

marycar53 wrote:

I have an older model 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6 push/pull lens that I have a 1.4X extender on. I was wondering if there's enough difference to upgrade the the newest version?

Which extender?
I have owned the 100-400 mk I and mk II and used both with the 1.4x III. The mk II and the III were all part of a group of optics designed to work together. You lose almost nothing in image quality when used right in good light.
The mk I gave great results with the extender but the mk II is just enough better that I would say that with the extender it equals the mk I without extender.
But if I was still using the mk I then I could live with that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

rmorrison1116 wrote:

If money is not a concern, upgrade. You can sell the older lens and keep the teleconverter. If money is tight then don't upgrade; there's nothing wrong with the older lens, although the newer lens is smaller and quite nice.

Couldn't have said it better myself, with the caveat of the v III extender.

marycar53 Loc: Tuscumbia Al

1.4 II, thanks

marycar53 Loc: Tuscumbia Al

thanks

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

marycar53 wrote:

thanks

If you use "quote reply" we will know just what you are responding to.

marycar53 Loc: Tuscumbia Al

robertjerl wrote:

Which extender?
I have owned the 100-400 mk I and mk II and used both with the 1.4x III. The mk II and the III were all part of a group of optics designed to work together. You lose almost nothing in image quality when used right in good light.
The mk I gave great results with the extender but the mk II is just enough better that I would say that with the extender it equals the mk I without extender.
But if I was still using the mk I then I could live with that.

extender is 1.4X II

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

CHG_CANON wrote:

Couldn't have said it better myself, with the caveat of the v III extender.

Nothing at all wrong with the original EF 100-400L. It is smaller and lighter than the V II lens. The V II lens is designed for optimal performance with the EF 1.4 III teleconverter. Is the V II a better lens? Yes, it is. Is the original 100-400L a good lens? Yes, it is a very good lens. Almost as good as it's big little brother the EF 28-300L, which is my favorite utility lens.
I personally liked the original because it is lighter than the V II and it is a push pull lens.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

marycar53 wrote:

extender is 1.4X II

The 1.4x III is the extender that is optimized for the 100-400L mk II. But some use it with the 1.4x II and get great results.

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

marycar53 wrote:

I have an older model 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6 push/pull lens that I have a 1.4X extender on. I was wondering if there's enough difference to upgrade the the newest version?

I shoot with 3 folks how had your lens and upgraded. They all say the new 100-400 II lens was a BIG improvement. Not only in sharpness but the lens no longer is a vacuum for dust and lint.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

billnikon wrote:

I shoot with 3 folks how had your lens and upgraded. They all say the new 100-400 II lens was a BIG improvement. Not only in sharpness but the lens no longer is a vacuum for dust and lint.

My EF 100-400L was not a dust pumper nor is my EF 28-300L a dust pumper. I don't understand why so many people believe these push pull lenses are dust pumpers. As far as I'm concerned, it's just an old wifes tale or some nonsense that people who can't afford the lenses spread as an excuse for not owning one.

anotherview Loc: California

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

Note that Sigma has introduced a 100-400mm lens worthy of consideration as an alternative to the Canon lens: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-100-400mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx

I own and use this Sigma lens with superb results.

Whichever way you decide to go, you may wish to rent to try before you buy.

marycar53 wrote:

I have an older model 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6 push/pull lens that I have a 1.4X extender on. I was wondering if there's enough difference to upgrade the the newest version?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

marycar53 wrote:

I have an older model 100-400mm L 4.5-5.6 push/pull lens that I have a 1.4X extender on. I was wondering if there's enough difference to upgrade the the newest version?

Here is a testing that I did - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-559479-1.html

I assume you are using it with a f8 enabled body - which one ??

The biggest differences are:

The IS is much better on the II version - but this only matters when shooting low light STATIC subjects.

The II version is better optically and AF is better when used with the III version extender

Without the extender, both versions optical qualities are very close , but the II has a very slight edge.

If you do birds in flight or other fast action, the push/pull zooming of the I version is much more accommodating than the twist zooming of the II.

..

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

anotherview wrote:

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

Note that Sigma has introduced a 100-400mm lens worthy of consideration as an alternative to the Canon lens: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-100-400mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx

I own and use this Sigma lens with superb results.

Whichever way you decide to go, you may wish to rent to try before you buy.

I have no doubt the Sigma lens is a fine lens. I own the Sigma 150-600 Sport with Canon mount and it is very well built and has excellent optics. The quality of Sigma products has greatly increased since the next generation took over the business.

The new Sigma 100-400 may be considered as an alternative to the Canon lens but since the Sigma is a Contemporary series lens and the Canon is an L series lens, I doubt the Sigma is "as good" as the Canon.