I wonder why the Canon EF 100-400mm is so much cheaper at some places than others?

HKGuns wrote in post #19179221
I’ll put my dust pump up against a V2 any day of the week.

the only difference is the IS system is much better

you can deal with the optics in lR...too easy to hit the big 3 adjustment and exceed what comes off the V2. The only version 2 lens I own is the 24-70

umphotography wrote in post #19179865
.
Man where are you seeing a 100-400 v2 for $900...thats a great price
.

.
I was SO WRONG about that. . The one I saw a while back must have been an outlier ..... and if I can only remember one being that cheap, I shouldn't have said they were selling for $900 routinely. . Sorry for the crappy misinformation.

There are many of them for sale in the classifieds on the Fred Miranda forum. . Asking price for most of them ranges from $1300 to $1400. . People sell used gear for reasonable prices there.


.

Should anyone want to in on a likely bidding war, there is a “II” on eBay, described as excellent condition, with a starting bid of $1200.

You can find the lens, and other gear at https://www.ebay.com/u​sr/beeley_12. Seller is moving to an R5 and getting rid of some unneeded items.

HKGuns wrote in post #19179221
I’ll put my dust pump up against a V2 any day of the week.

umphotography wrote in post #19179866
the only difference is the IS system is much better

you can deal with the optics in lR...too easy to hit the big 3 adjustment and exceed what comes off the V2. The only version 2 lens I own is the 24-70

.
What do you men by "IR"? . I am not familiar with that abbreviation.

You are right about the IS being better in the v2. . This makes a huge difference for the way I shoot. . I can get tack sharp freehand shots down to 1/25th of a second at 400mm ..... could never do that with the v1.

With the copies I have used, I have noticed that the V2 is noticeably sharper wide open, especially at the long end. I used to stop down to f7.1 to get a sharp enough image when I used the v1. . With the v2, I have no fear of shooting wide open in any situation, and at any focal length.

Another big thing about the v2 is the much closer minimum focus distance, it is roughly 3 feet, compared to roughly 5 feet for the v1. . I use my 100-400s a lot for close-up work, and the extra magnification that the v2 provides is truly a game-changer for things like butterflies, toads, lizards etc.

The autofocus system n the v2 is much faster and more responsive than that of the v1. . For subjects like birds in full flight, with rapidly changing angles, my v2 acquires focus more readily than either of my v1s ever could. . I've gotten a crapton of perfectly focused duck photos at close range with the v2, that the v1 could never have gotten in focus in time. . A split second of extra responsiveness really does make a huge difference in real-life scenarios.

Anyone I know who has used the v1 for years and years, in the most challenging of situations, and then also used the v2 for years and years in the most challenging of situations, claims that the v2 is so much better in many areas. . And I concur, based on all of the experience I have with both versions.


.

umphotography wrote in post #19179866
the only difference is the IS system is much better

you can deal with the optics in lR...too easy to hit the big 3 adjustment and exceed what comes off the V2. The only version 2 lens I own is the 24-70

That isn't the only difference. I ran both versions side by side for a period of time, and the MKII comes out cleaner (seems to render more fine detail) and a bit more contrast. Sure you can post process the MKI, but then again, you would want to compare to a post processed MKII version two, else you don't have an apples to apples comparison.

The MKI was just barely better than the Sigma 50-500 OS and other lenses of the era, when they were compared by the various sites, in regards to lines of detail rendered.

From one well-known comparison site:

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19179890
.
What do you men by "IR"? . I am not familiar with that abbreviation.

You are right about the IS being better in the v2. . This makes a huge difference for the way I shoot. . I can get tack sharp freehand shots down to 1/25th of a second at 400mm ..... could never do that with the v1.

With the copies I have used, I have noticed that the V2 is noticeably sharper wide open, especially at the long end. I used to stop down to f7.1 to get a sharp enough image when I used the v1. . With the v2, I have no fear of shooting wide open in any situation, and at any focal length.

Another big thing about the v2 is the much closer minimum focus distance, it is roughly 3 feet, compared to roughly 5 feet for the v1. . I use my 100-400s a lot for close-up work, and the extra magnification that the v2 provides is truly a game-changer for things like butterflies, toads, lizards etc.

The autofocus system n the v2 is much faster and more responsive than that of the v1. . For subjects like birds in full flight, with rapidly changing angles, my v2 acquires focus more readily than either of my v1s ever could. . I've gotten a crapton of perfectly focused duck photos at close range with the v2, that the v1 could never have gotten in focus in time. . A split second of extra responsiveness really does make a huge difference in real-life scenarios.

Anyone I know who has used the v1 for years and years, in the most challenging of situations, and then also used the v2 for years and years in the most challenging of situations, claims that the v2 is so much better in many areas. . And I concur, based on all of the experience I have with both versions.

.

lR likely means LR, which means Lightroom, which implies post processing of the files to get them to match or exceed the MKII directly out of camera. However if detail is missing, no amount of post processing will recreate that missing detail.

I'm with Tom, the difference between these two versions of the 100-400mm is dramatic in many ways.

- Autofocus i difference is huge. The V2 took the AF speed right up there with the costliest super tele primes. That's now become more common in high end Canon zooms, but it was a first with the 100-400mm II

- IQ also jumped considerably. I was able to part with both my old 100-400mm and the 400mm prime, as the IQ was that good.

The only aspect of the version 1 I miss is the push pull.

Anyway, anything I say here is just retreading what's been discussed at long lengths in the review thread I posted so many years ago that took on a whole life of its own due to the fact that everyone shooting that lens was so gobsmacked by the degree of improvement.
Most lens upgrades are incremental at best. This one was truly monumental.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19179900
lR likely means LR, which means Lightroom...

Probably correct, a lower case L followed by upper case R = lR

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19179899
That isn't the only difference. I ran both versions side by side for a period of time, and the MKII comes out cleaner (seems to render more fine detail) and a bit more contrast. Sure you can post process the MKI, but then again, you would want to compare to a post processed MKII version two, else you don't have an apples to apples comparison.

The MKI was just barely better than the Sigma 50-500 OS and other lenses of the era, when they were compared by the various sites, in regards to lines of detail rendered.

From one well-known comparison site:

I must of had a really good copy on my 100-400V1....it was dam sharp and super fast to focus. The new owners says the same

Typo on previous comment

LR is Lightroom

sorry guys
TYPO on my part

In meant LR for Lightroom

I have had really good luck with my version 1 glass

my 100-400 i miss at times but the sigma 150-600 was always a better choice for me- I regret selling it especially now that I have decided to go R6

my 100-400 was very fast to focus and very sharp

people bad mouth the 500 F4 version 1. I got one super cheap that was a 9 condition lens. I paid 2200.00 and it was a 2008 MFG. read about being to heavy to hand hold, focus too slow not as sharp at the version 2.......I an completely ticked to use this lens. I eat my wheaties before I take it out so im able to hand hold a lot

this comes off my 500F4 3 weeks ago. pretty happy. had similar results with my 1oo-400.....Guess im Lucky

I bartered the 100-400 L IS in 2008. Used it and loved the range it provided. Did it compare to the newer offerings like the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II I bought in Jan 2011, now 10 years ago to the day, no. Christmas 2018 St. Nick bought the 100-400 L IS Mark II. After several test shot in different scenarios, the new Mark II wins, color, contrast, corner to corner sharpness, improved AF and more. Wish I, St. Nick delivered earlier.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19178801
.
The NEW version of this lens, the 100-400 version 2, is now routinely being sold for $900 or less, used. . And the new version is MUCH better than the old one that you are considering, in almost every way.

So, being one who has a LOT of experience shooting both versions of this lens, if I were in your shoes, and convinced that I wanted a version 1 instead of a version 2, I would be very careful with how much I spent for it. . I can't imagine paying more than $500, and would try to find one for closer to $400.

EDIT: . At first I thought you meant the old, discontinued version. . I see that Team Speed also seems to have thought the same thing (quoted below). . However, upon re-reading your post, more carefully, I see that you mention both the version 1 and then the version 2. . So, which one is it that you are wanting to buy?
.

.

I am trying to decide between the EF 100-400mm L II plus a 1.4x extender, or the new RF 100-500mm lens. So far these are my pros and cons about the two lenses:

EF 100-400
PROS: cheaper, can use on my 7d and 5D II, and would add a versatile zoom range from 100-400mm (I only have primes, 100mm, 200mm, and 400mm), can use "adapted" to my R6, and it is a more rugged lens than the RF 100-500. .

CONS: older lens, slightly slower than the RF 100-500mm, a little heavier (not an issue with me).

RF 100-500mm
PROS: new lens, 100mm over the EF's 400, perhaps slightly faster or better R6 body and lens IS than an adapted EF version, zoom covers 100-400mm, and adapter not needed.

CONS: more expensive (a little overpriced), less rugged than the EF 100-400mm, cannot use on my other cameras. There also are limitations on the usefulness of an extender below 150mm (?).

RayinAlaska wrote in post #19182409
I am trying to decide between the EF 100-400mm L II plus a 1.4x extender, or the new RF 100-500mm lens. So far these are my pros and cons about the two lenses:

EF 100-400
PROS: cheaper, can use on my 7d and 5D II, and would add a versatile zoom range from 100-400mm (I only have primes, 100mm, 200mm, and 400mm), can use "adapted" to my R6, and it is a more rugged lens than the RF 100-500. .

CONS: older lens, slightly slower than the RF 100-500mm, a little heavier (not an issue with me).

RF 100-500mm
PROS: new lens, 100mm over the EF's 400, perhaps slightly faster or better R6 body and lens IS than an adapted EF version, zoom covers 100-400mm, and adapter not needed.

CONS: more expensive (a little overpriced), less rugged than the EF 100-400mm, cannot use on my other cameras. There also are limitations on the usefulness of an extender below 150mm (?).

How do they compare on IQ? For the price, I expect the 100-500 to be first rate, but I haven't seen any reviews or comparisons. Is that because nobody can get their hands on one?

There is one thread in this forum on the 100-500 but it hasn't been active since last June, and even then there weren't any user reports. It was more of a discussion about size, weight, f/7.1, and switching to Nikon.

mcoren wrote in post #19182615
.
How do they compare on IQ? For the price, I expect the 100-500 to be first rate, but I haven't seen any reviews or comparisons. Is that because nobody can get their hands on one?
.

.
I think they must be readily available, because a few weeks ago my friend bought a Canon R5 and the 100-500mm on a whim. . He used it a couple of times, decided that the AF wasn't as good as that on his Sony A92 / 200-600mm for ducks in flight, so he returned them. . So I think they're readily available, because he was able to get one the moment he whimsically decided to buy one to see what it was like.


.