Canon 100 400 Vs Canon 100 400 II: Which Lens is Right for You?

Hey everyone, I’ve been shooting with Canon lenses for years, and lately, I’ve been diving into the Canon 100 400 Vs Canon 100 400 II comparison. Both are fantastic for wildlife and sports photography, but there are key differences that might sway your decision. I’ve used both lenses extensively and want to share my experiences to help you choose the right one. Let’s get started.

I remember when the original telephoto zoom hit the market—it was a game-changer. Its versatile focal length was perfect for capturing distant subjects without breaking the bank. Then, the updated version came along, promising better performance. Curious about the upgrades, I tested both in various conditions to see how they stack up.

Canon 100 400 Vs Canon 100 400 II Comparison

Key Features

When choosing a lens, I always start with the basics. Both share a 100-400mm focal length, ideal for wildlife and sports. This range lets me zoom in on distant subjects without moving closer—crucial for photographing skittish animals or athletes. The f/4.5-5.6 aperture is decent but requires care in low light, especially at 400mm.

The focal length makes these lenses versatile. Whether I’m shooting a soaring eagle or a sprinting soccer player, the 100-400mm range covers it all. Both lenses are part of the L-series, known for quality. They’re built to handle the demands of outdoor photography.

Optical Design

The original lens has 17 elements in 14 groups, including one fluorite and one UD-glass element. These reduce chromatic aberrations, ensuring sharp images. The Mark II steps up with 19 elements in 15 groups, featuring one fluorite and one super UD-glass element. This enhances clarity, especially at longer focal lengths.

Fluorite and UD-glass elements minimize color fringing, which is critical for high-contrast scenes. The Mark II’s advanced optics deliver better resolution and contrast. I’ve noticed less need for post-processing corrections with the updated lens. Its coatings also reduce flare and ghosting in backlit conditions.

Image Quality

Image quality is where the Mark II shines. At 400mm, it’s sharper, with crisp details that stand out when cropping or printing large. The original is still sharp, but the Mark II has an edge. Colors are more vibrant and true-to-life with the updated lens.

At f/5.6, the Mark II delivers exceptional sharpness across the frame. The original shows slight softness at the edges when wide open. Stopping down to f/8 improves both, but the Mark II maintains its lead. Chromatic aberration is better controlled in the Mark II, reducing color fringing in high-contrast shots.

Color rendition is another win for the Mark II. Its advanced coatings minimize flare, resulting in natural, vibrant colors. In backlit conditions, the original can struggle with washed-out colors, but the Mark II holds up better. This makes a big difference for wildlife shots at dawn or dusk.

Build and Design

Build quality matters in tough conditions. The original has a polycarbonate barrel—solid but lightweight. The Mark II uses magnesium alloy, giving it a premium, durable feel. Its advanced weather sealing gives me confidence in rain or dust, unlike the original’s basic protection.

The original’s lightweight build is great for long hikes. Its lens mount feels secure but not as robust as the Mark II’s. The updated lens’s magnesium alloy construction feels reassuringly solid. I’ve used it in light rain without worry, while I was cautious with the original.

The Mark II’s lens hood has a side window for filter adjustments, a practical upgrade. The original’s hood is functional but lacks this feature. Both lenses have a 77mm filter thread, compatible with polarizers and ND filters. The Mark II’s mount clicks satisfyingly onto the camera.

Autofocus Performance

Autofocus is critical for action shots. The original’s ring-type USM is reliable, but the Mark II locks on faster and tracks better. Its smoother, quieter USM and optimized AF algorithms excel with modern cameras. For fast-moving subjects like birds, the Mark II is a game-changer.

When tracking birds in flight, the Mark II focuses almost instantly. The original can hunt in low light, leading to missed shots. With cameras like the EOS R6, the Mark II leverages advanced AF systems for near-instantaneous focus. Its quieter operation is also great for video.

The focus limiter switch on both lenses helps speed up AF by restricting the focus range. I’ve found it useful for distant subjects. The Mark II’s AF feels more refined, especially in dynamic situations like sports photography.

Image Stabilization

Stabilization is a major upgrade in the Mark II. The original offers 1.5 stops, helpful but limited for handheld shooting. The Mark II provides up to 4 stops, letting me shoot at 1/60s at 400mm and still get sharp images. This is a lifesaver in low light.

The Mark II’s three stabilization modes—standard, panning, and exposure-only—are versatile. The exposure-only mode is perfect for action shots, stabilizing only during the shutter press. The original has two modes, lacking this flexibility. I’ve captured sharp wildlife shots at slower speeds with the Mark II.

For example, during a dawn shoot, I handheld the Mark II at 1/30s and got usable results. With the original, I’d need 1/250s for similar sharpness. This makes the Mark II ideal for tripod-free scenarios.

Versatility

Both lenses are incredibly versatile. I’ve used them for wildlife, sports, landscapes, and even events. The Mark II’s better stabilization and image quality shine in low light, like dawn wildlife shoots. Both support teleconverters for extended reach.

For landscapes, the 100-400mm range compresses perspectives creatively. In events, they capture candid moments from a distance. With a 1.4x extender, the range becomes 140-560mm, perfect for distant wildlife. The 77mm filter thread supports various filters for creative effects.

The Mark II handles teleconverters better due to its sharper optics. However, extenders reduce aperture and can slow AF. Both lenses produce pleasing bokeh, with the Mark II having a slight edge for smoother backgrounds.

Handling and Ergonomics

Handling can make or break your experience. The original’s push/pull zoom is unique but took me time to master. The Mark II’s rotating zoom ring feels more natural and precise. Its smoother focus ring is great for manual adjustments.

The original’s zoom can attract dust over time. The Mark II’s rotating zoom avoids this issue. Its tripod collar can be removed while mounted, unlike the original’s, which requires detaching the lens. Both balance well on full-frame cameras like the 5D Mark IV.

On crop sensors like the 7D Mark II, the lenses can feel front-heavy, especially the Mark II. The focus limiter switch on both enhances usability. The Mark II’s refined ergonomics make it my preference for long shoots.

Real-World Performance

In the field, both lenses perform well, but the Mark II excels. With the original, I’ve captured sharp bird-in-flight shots, but high shutter speeds were necessary. The Mark II’s stabilization allows slower speeds, and its faster AF means fewer missed shots. Its weather sealing is reassuring in light rain.

During a dawn wildlife shoot, the Mark II’s stabilization let me capture sharp images at slow speeds. At a soccer match, its AF tracked players effortlessly. Even for casual shots, like my kids playing, the Mark II’s clarity and stabilization make cropping easier while retaining detail.

The original is still reliable for most scenarios. Its lighter weight is a plus for long hikes. However, in low light or fast action, the Mark II’s advantages are undeniable.

Comparison Table

Feature	Original 100-400	Mark II 100-400
Focal Length	100-400mm	100-400mm
Aperture	f/4.5-5.6	f/4.5-5.6
Optical Elements	17 in 14 groups	19 in 15 groups
Image Quality	Good	Excellent
Build Quality	Polycarbonate	Magnesium alloy
Weather Sealing	Basic	Advanced
Autofocus	Good	Excellent
Stabilization	1.5 stops	4 stops
Weight	1380g	1625g
Minimum Focus	1.2m (0.26x mag)	1.1m (0.27x mag)

How to Choose

Choosing between these lenses depends on your needs. Ask yourself these questions:

1. What’s your budget?
   The original is often more affordable, especially used, and offers great value.
2. Do you shoot in low light?
   The Mark II’s stabilization and image quality are better for dim conditions.
3. Need fast autofocus?
   The Mark II’s superior AF is ideal for action photography.
4. Concerned about weight?
   The original’s lighter build suits long shoots or travel.
5. What’s your photography style?
   Both excel for wildlife and sports, but consider size and weight for other genres.

These questions help narrow down your choice based on practical needs.

Decision-Making

In the Canon 100 400 Vs Canon 100 400 II debate, your choice hinges on priorities. The original is lighter and performs well, making it great for hobbyists or those on long shoots. The Mark II’s sharper images, better stabilization, and faster autofocus make it ideal for professionals. For challenging conditions, I’d choose the Mark II.

If you’re a casual shooter, the original meets most needs. Its availability on the used market adds appeal. Serious enthusiasts or pros will appreciate the Mark II’s upgrades. Consider your shooting style and environment before deciding.

Conclusion

Both the original and Mark II telephoto zooms are outstanding for wildlife and sports photography. The original offers solid performance and lighter weight, ideal for budget-conscious shooters. The Mark II’s superior sharpness, stabilization, and autofocus make it my top pick for demanding shoots. Choose based on your needs and enjoy capturing those distant moments!

FAQ

1. Can both lenses be used on crop sensor cameras?
   Yes, both are EF mount lenses, compatible with full-frame and crop sensors. On crop sensors, the focal length becomes 160-640mm due to the 1.6x crop factor.
2. Do they work with teleconverters?
   Yes, both support 1.4x and 2x extenders, extending the range to 140-560mm or 200-800mm. Expect some loss in aperture and image quality.
3. Is the Mark II compatible with older Canon bodies?
   Yes, it works with all EF mount bodies, but older cameras may not fully utilize its advanced autofocus.
4. How do they compare in terms of distortion?
   Both have minimal distortion, corrected by modern cameras. The Mark II’s optics may reduce it slightly more.
5. Are there any known issues?
   The original’s push/pull zoom can attract dust. The Mark II’s rotating zoom avoids this.
6. Which is better for video?
   The Mark II’s smoother autofocus and stabilization make it more suitable for video.
7. Can they be used on EOS R cameras?
   Yes, with an EF-EOS R adapter, both work on EOS R cameras. Autofocus performance may vary.
8. Any differences in color rendition?
   The Mark II’s coatings reduce flare, improving color accuracy and contrast, especially in backlit conditions.
9. How do they perform for vignetting?
   Both show some vignetting at wider apertures, correctable in post-processing. The Mark II may have slightly less.
10. Is the Mark II worth upgrading from the original?
    If the original meets your needs, there’s no urgent need to upgrade. For low light or fast action, the Mark II is worth considering.