Dilemma - Old Canon 100-400 Or New 100-400 II?

I am traveling for bird and mammal photography and will take my 500mm f4 IS, a 100-400, 70-200, 28-135 and a wider lens with 2 7D MKIIs.  I would like to buy the  newer version of the 100-400 but have little time left  to sell things to pay for it and I don't have the money to buy the new lens outright.

Should I sell my 7D VI, old 100-400 and my 300 2.8 IS to Henry's to buy the new version of the 100-400?  I don't very often use the 300 2.8, never travel with it but like it when I do use it.  I frequently use my 100-400 and most often from my kayak.

Would really appreciate input!

Eleanor

I have used my 500mm from my kayak for the last 15 years. I paddle about 400 to 500 miles a year. During that time a good friend has used the older 100-400 from his kayak. I recently purchased the new 100-400 and a matching 1.4 extender. I seriously doubt my 500 will go in the kayak very often again. Low light and to some degree fast action are the only situations where the 500 has an advantage in my field experience. My friend who has the old 100-400 purchased a new one with a 1.4 x about 2 weeks after he saw the images I was producing with mine and he thinks it was a great investment. We both shoot a 5d MKIII he also shoots some crop sensor cameras. My daughter assumed ownership of my 7d and I have not tried the 100-400 with it.

My new lens set for multi day kayak trips is the 100-400 with 1.4X and 500D close up replacing my 100 mm macro, 500 and 400 (I usually only take one of the 2 on a trip), and 70-200. I also take a Tokina 16-28, canon 24-105 (I wish I had a sharper option with this range but this is my most used on the water lens) and recently acquired 15mm macro. Based on my experience you would get a lot of use out of this lens, I would have a hard time trading out the 300 2.8 however.

Hi Eleanor,

Tough one, having owned both there's no doubt the MkII 100-400 is better, but I'm not sure it's that much better that you need to make a rush decision just for this trip.

How long are you planning to travel for? Is rental of the newer lens a possibility?

I don't believe you would need to trade all three items (7D, 100-400 MkI and 300 f/2.8LIS) to get the MkII 100-400, if you do need to then you are not getting a good deal, the 300 alone should more than cover it unless your copy is pretty beat up, although I would feel the items to lose are the 7D and the MkI 100-400.

I recently sold my 300 f/2.8 LIS, not sure I'm 100% regretting it but have started thinking about getting another one, like you I didn't excessively use it, so I'm not sure why, but I miss its out and out image quality, especially in low light - I think there's too big a difference between the 300 and 100-400 capabilities when the light is poor.

Not sure I'm helping you really, but good luck whichever way you go.

Kev

Thanks for relating your experience and situation, Kev. It all helps. If I waited to sell the 300 it would pay for a new 100-400. It is the old 100-400 and 7D that should go first. They would make a good package for someone. I've had the 100-400 since 1999 and it really has been a good lens. I think what I want out of the newer model is the closer focusing. It would cost me more than I want to pay to rent for 2 weeks.

There is nothing wrong with my old one so taking it on this trip is not really a problem and it has helped me make lots of good images.

Sold my version one 1-400L and 7D to upgrade to the newer versions of each. No regrets. The improved IS and sharpness at f5.6 stand out to me.

If you decide to buy the new 100-400 II, you will probably no longer need the 70-200 either. Since I bought the 100-400 II last year, I haven't used my 70-200 II.

Phil Shaw wrote:If you decide to buy the new 100-400 II, you will probably no longer need the 70-200 either.  Since I bought the 100-400 II last year, I haven't used my 70-200 II.

I really want to try the 100-400 II, and I am seriously considering selling my beloved 70-200 II for this reason alone.  I think the 100-400 II would suit my needs better.  This is what I really want to hear

Phil Shaw wrote:If you decide to buy the new 100-400 II, you will probably no longer need the 70-200 either.  Since I bought the 100-400 II last year, I haven't used my 70-200 II.

Agree, have taken the 70-200 on most trips recently just because....... but haven't really used it at all. I usually have a smaller body (mirrorless) for wider shots, that one has a 24-70 on it. Don't miss the 70-100 range at all. This is on a FF camera. 

The only time I have used both was where I had the 70-200 on a FF and 100-400 on the 7D2. That gave me an effective reach from 70-640 (almost). 

Pradeep

After acquiring the 100-400 II I sold my 70-200 2.8 and 300 2.8. I sometimes miss the speed but the high ISO's are so good now that the doesn't seem as necessary. I notice the difference between the 100-400 V1 and 2 primarily in large full frame prints. I don't think I could tell the difference with a crop camera but there are some other nice things about the Version 2--closer focusing, twist zoom rather than push pull, better IS for example.

I'm not a tester so these are just observations, I don't have any proof to back them up. I'm quite happy I made the switch but I'm using it primarily with a 5Ds-r. With my 7DII I'm not sure I could tell much difference. Also, I don't do many birds in flight or other small, quick moving subjects. I'd guess the version 2 would be better at those things.

If you could afford to keep the 300 f 2.8 L IS keep it.
It is very useful when you need the reach or the light is low.
My wife has the 100-400 Mark II and 7D mark II and my old 300 f 2.8 L IS.
The 300 with the 2.0x extender is excellent when you need the extra reach.
Of course you have the 500.
However, I remember taking the 300 only to Florida and never missed the 500.
It also is excellent for BIF shooting.

Eleanor, the new version of the 100-400 is astonishingly better then the old version. It's so good, I rarely ever use my 70-200/2.8 II anymore.... and instead just use the 100-400 II.

Karl, I do agree that the 300 would be good for Florida. I think I'll likely get the new 100-400 eventually and keep the 500, 300 and 70-200. I like the 70-200 too much to give it up and I bought it used so don't really have much invested in it. For that matter my 500 was bought used as well.

I am down to the wire for my trip and will be taking what I have!

Thanks, Ethan! You have convinced me.

Thanks to everyone who joined in! I really appreciate your input!

Eleanor

Hi Eleanor, I am late to the table but want to reiterate what the others have suggested.  I too have the 500 but my NEW go to set up for most situations is the 7D II with the 100-400 II. I can hand hold it and the images are beautifully sharp.  I agree on the sale of the 70-200 too.  If you ever want to take the 100-400 for a spin, I am happy to lend it to you so you can make an educated decision.  We can meet somewhere in between Gravenhurst and Bala  
Missy

Thanks, Missy! I'll be buying the lens eventually but have to wait awhile longer. If you are up this way let me know and maybe we can get together.

Eleanor

No doubt about it the 100-400 MK II is far and away better than the version I. We have used version II for about 10 months and just love it.

my 2 cents. I have the new 100-400 and love it. The old one was not good enough for me to even keep in my arsenal....I still use a 70-200/2.8 for low light shots such as Gorilla Treks.

Thanks for your replies, everyone! I'm heading out with my old 100-400. I have made thousands of good images with my copy and am not sorry to be taking it. I'll be keeping my 70-200 as well as I use it quite a bit because it is great in low light and good for some flight photography and by adding an extension tube I can almost do macro from my kayak hand held.