Canon 100-400 L IS Mark II.....worth the upgrade?

May be looking to upgrade my Canon 100-400 L IS Version 1 to the Mark II. Sure we can look at the specs. But am looking for feedback from you that have done the upgrade.
Thanks.

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1411​834&page=1

Basically 188 pages worth of YES

haha.

Only 4 detractions that I've gathered: price, a bit more weight, rotating zoom ring and non-removable lens collar with its four little screws

I have version 1. I am happy with it, and have no intentions to upgrade. I primarily use it on a 6D for little kids' field sports. I have not used it on my 70D, yet. That said...

A shooting acquaintance of mine upgraded to version II, and swears by the improved AF speed and accuracy, and the IQ at 400mm. Photozone's review agrees with him. He shoots BIF on a 7DII. To him, version II was money well-spent.

Bassat wrote in post #17846527
I have version 1. I am happy with it, and have no intentions to upgrade. I primarily use it on a 6D for little kids' field sports. I have not used it on my 70D, yet. That said...

A shooting acquaintance of mine upgraded to version II, and swears by the improved AF speed and accuracy, and the IQ at 400mm. Photozone's review agrees with him. He shoots BIF on a 7DII. To him, version II was money well-spent.

I have the mk1 and mk2 and shoot motorsport using 5d3's and I am convinced teh mk2 is a worthwhile upgrade

I upgraded from the original to the Mark II last spring and have zero regrets. The new version is sharper, has better AF performance, and much improved image stabilization. The only thing I miss from the old lens is the push/pull zoom, but it was a small price to pay for all the improvements.

Yes.

Oh, do you want more than a "Yes."

I tried and tried to like the original 100-400mm but in the two I tried the image quality didn't compare (in my opinion) to my copy of the 70-200mm f2.8 IS I had + 1.4 TC. I couldn't justify spending the money on the more useable focal lengths....and definitely more usable for the wildlife and landscape photography I primarily do. I even liked the pump zoom. I just couldn't get past the thought that I would have to spend $1,000+ for less IQ than was already in the bag.

But holy wow the 100-400mm V2 is AMAZING!!! I sold my old 70-200mm f2.8 IS after using the V2 for a few months. Yes, I miss f2.8 a little, but damn the IQ coming from the new 100-400mm brings huge smiles to my face. For the first couple of days of post processing images off this lens my mouth was on the floor. It is that good!

Very worthwile upgrade. IS upgrade is tremendous and helps with the added weight. Images have more contrast and are sharper to my eyes. The vII has tripod sensing where the v1 did not. Like the twist zoom of vII. The vII takes 1.4x III tc's nicely. Using cpl filters does not compromise AF.

My only complainrs are the price and the weight.

notastockpikr wrote in post #17846957
Very worthwile upgrade. IS upgrade is tremendous and helps with the added weight. Images have more contrast and are sharper to my eyes. The vII has tripod sensing where the v1 did not. Like the twist zoom of vII. The vII takes 1.4x III tc's nicely. Using cpl filters does not compromise AF.

My only complainrs are the price and the weight.

Can anyone else confirm this? This is HUGE. Version I detests filters of any kind. THAT could get me to rethink my position on upgrading.

Based on what I read on forums, Canon's newer lenses are praised as follows:

100-400II huge upgrade in IQ, and image stabilization, some miss the push pull zoom.
16-35 f/4 greatly improved especially near the edges.
24-70 f/2.8L II the best mid range zoom ever, expensive, and the version I was no slouch.

I have only owned the 100-400 II, so I cannot compare versions, but I am quite impressed with the new one.

Bassat wrote in post #17846992
Can anyone else confirm this? This is HUGE. Version I detests filters of any kind. THAT could get me to rethink my position on upgrading.

I was out shooting with a CPL on my 100-400mm Mark II today. Granted I was shooting landscapes, but I haven't noticed any issues autofocusing with a CPL on so far. It wasn't an issue shooting wildlife in the Galapagos either - where I had a CPL on almost the whole trip.

This is the first time I've ever thought of it. Guess that's a good thing!

I owned the V1 of the lens for a number of years. I think the upgrade to the V2 is absolutely worth it. One of the thing I really enjoy when out shooting nature and wildlife is the reduced minimum focal distance vs the V1. It makes the lens much more versatile now. I also think a lot of people are noticing such improved IQ because the optics of the V1 could no longer resolve as good as the most recent sensors. Problem definitely solved in the V2.

My primary use for CPLs with my 100-400L is around water. We have several parks along a local river, a kayaking artificial waterway, and several parks with water for the ducks and geese that crap all over the place. Ability to use a CPL would help greatly (glare and saturation) around the water. Not so much with the goose-turds.

Bassat wrote in post #17847194
My primary use for CPLs with my 100-400L is around water. We have several parks along a local river, a kayaking artificial waterway, and several parks with water for the ducks and geese that crap all over the place. Ability to use a CPL would help greatly (glare and saturation) around the water. Not so much with the goose-turds.

Ha - right! No turds

Yeah, I've used the CPL on the 100-400mm v2 kayaking. AF works there too. I guess you no longer have any excuses not to lighten your wallet a bit.