New bird photographer (1 Viewer)

[parrotmad]

Hello all, I’ve just joined this forum and am after some advice please. After being a keen birdwatcher for some years, I've finally started bird photography with a second hand canon 60D. It’s been great for my indoor birds so far, but of course for wild birds I’m struggling without a zoom lens!

I’m thinking of purchasing either the 100-400 mkI or the mkII.

Is the mkII worth the extra investment, and is anybody here selling either of these second hand please?

I do apologise if I’ve posted this in the wrong section. Thanks for taking the time to read.

 

[Kits]

Welcome to Birdforum! I am sure that you will find lots to interest you here and I hope that you enjoy your visits.

You have posted in the right area! Hopefully you’ll get some good advice.

 

[delia todd]

Hi Parrotmad and a warm welcome to you from all the Staff and Moderators.

I'm sure you will enjoy it here. I look forward to hearing your news and, when you get your equipment sorted, will hopefully see some of the pictures of the wild birds you see in the Gallery.

 

[Jonno52]

Some copies of the Canon 100-400mm Mk1 were better than others. I was dissatisfied with mine from day one. Autofocus was slow, and results in terms of detail resolved never looked as good as I'd hoped, and I didn't like the push-pull zoom sytem (though some people did like that). Six weeks after I bought Mk1, Mk2 was released. For a while I tried to persuade myself that it wouldn't be that much better, and that I wouldn't upgrade. Finally I did fork out for Mk2 and it was immediately obvious that it was a much better lens. AF latched on to a target almost instantly, and the image stabiliser was far superior, worth at least 3 stops (Canon claim 4) while that on Mk1 was worth barely 2 stops. In ideal circumstances, Mk2 could show individual feather barbs, where Mk1 couldn't.

So personally I'd go for Mk2.

PS: welcome to BF!

 

[parrotmad]

Some copies of the Canon 100-400mm Mk1 were better than others. I was dissatisfied with mine from day one. Autofocus was slow, and results in terms of detail resolved never looked as good as I'd hoped, and I didn't like the push-pull zoom sytem (though some people did like that). Six weeks after I bought Mk1, Mk2 was released. For a while I tried to persuade myself that it wouldn't be that much better, and that I wouldn't upgrade. Finally I did fork out for Mk2 and it was immediately obvious that it was a much better lens. AF latched on to a target almost instantly, and the image stabiliser was far superior, worth at least 3 stops (Canon claim 4) while that on Mk1 was worth barely 2 stops. In ideal circumstances, Mk2 could show individual feather barbs, where Mk1 couldn't.

So personally I'd go for Mk2.

PS: welcome to BF!

Thank you all for the warm welcome

Jonno52 - thank you for your advice. That's one of the things that concerned me about buying the MK1...that I would buy it and regret not going for the MK2 in the first place! I do like the sound of the IS being superior in the MK2 model, since I am planning to take pictures out on walks and won't always have a tripod/monopod with me so will reply on a steady hand! Thanks again

 

[MikeInPA]

A good friend use the MK2 version all the time. It's a superb lens based upon the shots he gets.

 

[njlarsen]

I believe there are several threads in this section discussing the pros and cons of each version.

Niels

 

[Prestdj]

I just got a 100-400 mkii after owning the mki yes it’s a far better piece of equipment

 

[parrotmad]

I just got a 100-400 mkii after owning the mki yes it’s a far better piece of equipment
View attachment 1378400View attachment 1378401

Beautiful photos, really clear! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Prestdj]

I wouldn’t want anyone to make the same mistakes I did years ago choosing camera gear!
I originally set out with canon 350d and a basic canon 300 mm zoom then progressed to a sigma 50-500 based on reviews I was never happy with that so got an original 100-400 then the 400 5.6 life got in the way got rid off it all!
15 years later still having the urge for photography I got a canon 7dmkii 1d mkiii 100-400 mkii 24/105 l mki, tokina 12-24 and 24mm prime

my advice would be get the 100-400 mkii it’s a great lense

 

[parrotmad]

I wouldn’t want anyone to make the same mistakes I did years ago choosing camera gear!
I originally set out with canon 350d and a basic canon 300 mm zoom then progressed to a sigma 50-500 based on reviews I was never happy with that so got an original 100-400 then the 400 5.6 life got in the way got rid off it all!
15 years later still having the urge for photography I got a canon 7dmkii 1d mkiii 100-400 mkii 24/105 l mki, tokina 12-24 and 24mm prime

my advice would be get the 100-400 mkii it’s a great lense

Thank you, that's great advice! Looks like I'll be on the lookout for a decent 2nd hand MK2 then

 

[Prestdj]

I got mine used from Harrison’s camera in Sheffield boxed like new for £1500 cheaper than mpb by around £300
Good luck

 

[KC Foggin]

Welcome aboard Parrotmad

 

[colincurry]

Mk 1 false economy. Mk 2 much superior in every way. Have used both and upgraded to the Mark 2 which I intend to continue to use with my R5 due to arrive tomorrow

 

[mikenott]

Agree with advice to go MkII - not least because to some extent you are future-proofing yourself if you decide to upgrade your camera body at some stage. The MkII works extremely well with all bodies up to and including the new R5 (with an adapter).

 

[sillyak]

I was in the same boat as you a few weeks ago. I ended up buying a used, but mint, 300mm f/4 L (the older non-IS version).

It has a reputation as a very sharp lens, sharper than the newer IS version apparently.

I'm sure the performance isn't near the 100-400 Mk II, but it can be found used quite cheap and it might be a good way to get your feet wet.

Autofocus performance and build quality are great. I find having f/4 is nice in low light. This might be especially true with your camera as it's a bit older and high ISO performance would not be overly great. It apparently also does well with a 1.4x extender, which would give 420mm f/5.6.

Here are a couple shots, again I've only had it for three weeks.