Canon Lens differences

[silverfoxcc]

Looking at getting either a 70-300 or 100-400 IS lens

Focal length side, is there any major difference between the first 'original' and the II version.
All i can see is that there is a tripod mount on the lens

[nellyleelephant]

silverfoxcc said:

Looking at getting either a 70-300 or 100-400 IS lens

Focal length side, is there any major difference between the first 'original' and the II version.
All i can see is that there is a tripod mount on the lens

The main difference between the 100-400 and 100-400ii is focus speed and image stabilization, the ii is significantly better than the original in these regards.

No experience of the 70-300.

[silverfoxcc]

Thanks

looks like i will have to save some more!!

[corozin]

Don't ruin yourself over it. The IS on the 100-400L is perfectly decent and the Mk1 version is one of the best , most versatile lenses Canon made. That's why they didn't upgrade it for over 10 years!

[RobDickinson]

100-400mk1 is push pull zoom some hate that
The IS system is very old and needs a second or so to 'kick in' and work, I found for snap shots its better to ignore it and go for shutter speed.

The mk2 us apparently all round amazeballs.

I have a 70-300L, IQ is great, its compact and works for me for tele landscapes, would be ok for daytime field sports and motor racing, for birds its probably too short unless you are a top grade stalker.

[9.3]

I have the 70-300L, an absolute cracker - not overweight and superb images, love it.

[RobDickinson]

Yep wish it came with a collar is all. cant be feked to buy one, neither of the ones I have fit.