Canon 100-400 Mk1 vs Mk2

Genoma · 9 Apr 2015 at 16:51

There are plenty of reviews around, but any further opinions here on the Mk1? Very tempted now it's 1/2 the price of the Mk2. Just over a grand on the river..

D.P. · 9 Apr 2015 at 16:59

Personally I would stump up the cash for the mk2, quite a good improvement.
EDIT: But i won neither. The original wa popular due to price point and flexibility with IQ just about OK at the long end. The new one is very sharp wide open at 400mm, which is pretty much all I personally care about.

Other ooptions would be a 300mm /f.40 prime with 1.4TC - you get even better sharpness, flexibility of getting a 300mm a stop faster but you done get the zoom. This is the option I chose.

Genoma · 9 Apr 2015 at 18:08

Would you say better sharpness with the 300 and the TC vs. the 100-400 II at 400mm DP?

I wonder if I should rent one to see how I would get on with a long prime.

D.P. · 9 Apr 2015 at 19:08

Genoma said:
Would you say better sharpness with the 300 and the TC vs. the 100-400 II at 400mm DP?

I wonder if I should rent one to see how I would get on with a long prime.

I would guess the 300mm prime with TC is still sharper than the 100-400 mk2, zooms are nearly always softest at the tele end.

The other thing is the 10-400mm wont really be quite 400m at the long and, 380mm or so (especially if focusing close), the prime and TC will be much closer to a true 420mm. so even at equal sharpness you will gain a little detail with about 10% more pixels on the subject.

It is all a tradeoff really, being able to be at 300mm f/4.0 can have advnatges when the light levels drop. But for soemthing like motor sports where you might need to zoom in and out then the 100-400mm is preferable.

Phal · 9 Apr 2015 at 19:10

Depends on what you plan to use it for I think.

Wildlife is very rarely close enough, let alone too close so a prime isn't a problem there. As long as the lens performs well enough for you with a TC then it's not bad.

If I was buying a mk1 then I'd probably just buy second hand... Then again I did buy second hand when I had one so that's probably why

MPB has plenty for £749 and a couple at lower prices (probably due to looking more worn) so that could be worth considering.

Ultimately though, you'll always want the mk2

and then you'll want a big prime or something lol

Jase · 9 Apr 2015 at 22:16

Out of those 2 then I'd definitely get the MKII as I found the MKI really annoying.

a1ex2001 · 10 Apr 2015 at 09:02

I have used the mki on a couple of wildlife trips and can't fault it the versatility and range was ideal for what I was shooting. I love the push pull zoom and was disapointed that canon ditched it even though I assumed they would.

That said I only ever had the lens short term once on loan and once purchased second hand and sold a month later if I was actually investing my own money I'd want the mkii as it looks to be a big improvement in terms of image quality, but it is seriously expensive!

Phal · 10 Apr 2015 at 19:10

a1ex2001 said:
I love the push pull zoom and was disapointed that canon ditched it even though I assumed they would.

Yeah I also liked the push/pull mechanism

made it nice and fast to zoom in/out but I know plenty of people didn't like it.

Combat squirrel · 11 Apr 2015 at 11:41

If you want a cheaper zoom thats much better than the 100-400mk1 get the Tamron 150-600 - similar price & much sharper at 400mm + you get more reach.

Genoma · 11 Apr 2015 at 16:02

The tamron is on my consideration list too... looks huge

Luke · 11 Apr 2015 at 23:04

I'm just in the process of flogging stuff in order to buy the Tamron. I've read so many reviews and once you get over the fact it isn't 'L' glass and is going to be physically inferior to the Canon lens then I think it is going to be a corking lens.

If I could afford the new 100-400 II then it would be a no-brainer, but when I'm looking at either a 2nd hand 100-400 or a new Tamron I think the Tamron edges it for me.

D.P. · 12 Apr 2015 at 02:00

Luke said:
I'm just in the process of flogging stuff in order to buy the Tamron. I've read so many reviews and once you get over the fact it isn't 'L' glass and is going to be physically inferior to the Canon lens then I think it is going to be a corking lens.

If I could afford the new 100-400 II then it would be a no-brainer, but when I'm looking at either a 2nd hand 100-400 or a new Tamron I think the Tamron edges it for me.

I would wait to look at reviews for the sigma C 150-600, slightly smaller and lighter and around the same price. There is an expectation that it is sharper than the tamron.

Combat squirrel · 12 Apr 2015 at 18:26

Luke said:
I'm just in the process of flogging stuff in order to buy the Tamron. I've read so many reviews and once you get over the fact it isn't 'L' glass and is going to be physically inferior to the Canon lens then I think it is going to be a corking lens.

If I could afford the new 100-400 II then it would be a no-brainer, but when I'm looking at either a 2nd hand 100-400 or a new Tamron I think the Tamron edges it for me.

D.P. said:
I would wait to look at reviews for the sigma C 150-600, slightly smaller and lighter and around the same price. There is an expectation that it is sharper than the tamron.

I'm agreeing with Luke here, even if the Sigma is sharper, it's likely not as sharp as the sigma sport - while the tamron is 96% as good - i.e. the difference is going to be so small that technique will be the biggest factor, going to pull the trigger on the Tamron this week, no way the Sigma will be £650-700 on release.

Phal · 12 Apr 2015 at 19:49

Combat squirrel said:
I'm agreeing with Luke here, even if the Sigma is sharper, it's likely not as sharp as the sigma sport - while the tamron is 96% as good - i.e. the difference is going to be so small that technique will be the biggest factor, going to pull the trigger on the Tamron this week, no way the Sigma will be £650-700 on release.

£899 on pre-order from Wex just in case you were wondering

Combat squirrel · 12 Apr 2015 at 19:52

Phal said:
£899 on pre-order from Wex just in case you were wondering

But I bet not £200-250 better than the Tamron

D.P. · 12 Apr 2015 at 20:53

Combat squirrel said:
I'm agreeing with Luke here, even if the Sigma is sharper, it's likely not as sharp as the sigma sport - while the tamron is 96% as good - i.e. the difference is going to be so small that technique will be the biggest factor, going to pull the trigger on the Tamron this week, no way the Sigma will be £650-700 on release.

He sigma is cheaper than the tamron in the US, and a sigma claimed there is no sharpness difference compared with the sport.

Luke · 12 Apr 2015 at 21:23

If its no sharper than why the emphasis on better glass? That's a lot extra for weather sealing on the sport then.

D.P. · 13 Apr 2015 at 01:48

Luke said:
If its no sharper than why the emphasis on better glass? That's a lot extra for weather sealing on the sport then.

Build quality, weather sealing, focus motors.

Sigma released their MTF charts, they look very, very similar. Sigma claim the only optical difference is CA in the FF edge.

the price difference is big, but I am still keeping my options open. The price of the Sigma 150-600mm Sports is actually relative cheap for a lens of that caliber. For example the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is 75% more expensive but the absolute aperture size is only 25% larger in area (12% in diameter).

The other big thing is AF performance. The sports model does very well, will posts link when b I'm back on my computer. The Tamron does relatively poorly unfortunately.

Luke · 13 Apr 2015 at 13:50

D.P. said:
He sigma is cheaper than the tamron in the US, .

The Sigma is £100 more at digitalrev currently.

D.P. · 13 Apr 2015 at 15:29

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

Here is a good comparison of the AF performance of the tamron compared to the sigma sports. Pittyy no C version in the mix