Might be time to buy a Nikon

You pay for the extra 4 years with
Nikon.

Canon switched to flat rate for most of their white lenses.

I see your logic as you really don't have much invested in Canon gear, might be worth it to try out canon OR get a 2x extender for that 300 and now you'll have a 600 5.6 L

I was very disappointed with Canon when I needed to send my 7D in for repair because the lens release pin wasn't withdrawing flush with the mount all the time, so I couldn't always change lens. I sent it in under warranty (still had to pay shipping, of course). Then I learned that one of my colleagues, a nikon shooter, had to send in a D700 for the exact same problem. He, surprisingly, sent it in on the exact same day.

I had my camera in my hands again at no extra cost in six days. Nikon is taking two weeks or more with my colleague's gear (which, admittedly, isn't under warranty any more).

It's one case, but I was much less bitter about the failure and the hassle when I saw my colleague's situation.

how does the MF go bad on a lens...that seems so weird to me...

seems like an odd reason to switch but to each their own.

peregrineflier wrote in post #11950146
I bought a used 400 5.6 about a year ago, a few weeks ago, the manual focus stoped working, but the AF stillo worked perfect. So, I sent it off to Canon. They called today and said it would cost $318 to repair. I asked why so much and they said $299 of it was labor. I told them to send it back, I am not baying that much, I can still focus it manualy in a pinch.
But, that does not make me real happy with them.

Why did you send it to Canon? It is not under warrante since you bought it used a year ago...

You may have ben able to drive it to a camera repair place in your neighborhood and we would then have to endure your complaints of that stores inability to offer near free service to the public.

Unless you go with a D7000, it's probably not worth it.

Fix the lens, then sell it. If you paid only $700 you should be able to recoup the repair cost by selling closer to the actual market value (if they commonly sell for close to $1000 as posted earlier)

Then off to Nikon you go

Sp1207 wrote in post #11950852
Canon is a company out to make money. Nikon is slightly better in terms of repair cost/service, at least in my experience. Now is a good time to switch too as Canon is a generation or so ahead in sensor tech.

Oddly enough, I do not know of any successful company that is not out to make money.

If I purchased a 400 5.6 for $700, I would suspect that it had been abused to some extent and that potential repairs would be part of the risk in purchasing it.

First you buy an used lens.
Second there is a problem.
You complain at the rate to repair your used lens.
Canon, you and myself do not work for free or at cost.
When buying used you do not know the history of the lens, how it was handled, etc..
It is one of the risks.
That is why I like to buy new.
Getting the 400 5.6 repaired for that amount is a fair rate.
How much do you think it should cost?

peregrineflier wrote in post #11950238
No, I just don't think it should amount to highway robbery. I only paid $700 for the lens, I got plenty of use out of it, so it is not worth $318 to me to get it fixed. My 7d had to go back to the shop, my 100 to 400 had to the shop, now my 400mm, I think I want to try a Camera company that does not have to make so many trips to the shop!

You bought a used lens Sorry man, but you don't know the lenses prior history.

neurorog wrote in post #11953841
Oddly enough, I do not know of any successful company that is not out to make money.

I'm glad I kept reading, that was going to be my reply.

Kafn8td wrote in post #11954251
I'm glad I kept reading, that was going to be my reply.

Definitely, I was just pointing out that expecting Canon to fix your lens at cost is unreasonable. Nikons business model (in my experience) is more about customer satisfaction with repair work rather than making repairs a profit generating sub-business.

I owned the lens for a year, worked perfect for that year and was and still is very clean, no scratches or dings and I used it alot, my only lens for most of that time.
There is a clutch that allows the focus ring to turn more that just the distance of the focus dist window, it is what went bad.
I did decide to go ahead and pay for the repair, I still think it is kind of high, but like I said, I got a lot of use out of it, so even with the $318 for repairs, I am okay. I might sell it when I get it back as a freshly cleaned and repaired lens with a six month repair warrenty, you dot see many of them for sell. : ) Not sure what I will do. I plan on selling my 300 2.8, will miss the hech out of it, but would like to get some bills out of the way, and may use the rest to get a Sigma 150-500. Just not sure yet.

Those who say Nikon offers a 5 year warranty - I think that's not correct.

I believe it's 1 year warranty and a additional 4 years service contract. A service contract may not be the same as warranty. Only labor might be covered, not parts. Is my understanding correct? (I would love to be wrong in this case though!-)