Canon 100-400mm.. to buy new or used??

Hi everybody and thanks for taking the time to read my post.

I am a brand new Canon user, coming over from Olympus (which was my first step into DSLR from P&S). My main motivation for the change was for what seems like a limitless selection of lenses (new and used), in both brand and focal lengths.

Wildlife and nature are about 99% of what I spend my time photographing, in a VERY amateur type fashion.

I've spent countless hours and late nights (as I'm sure most of us do when researching a lens or gear) surfing the net, going from review to review, and on this forum from post to post.

I'm looking to purchase the Canon 100-400 Zoom. I've read in the past there were possible issues with some copies being sharp, others not so much.. but this was an issue with older copies and in the past 3 or 4 years this issue has been cleared up??.

It seems to find a quality used lens, (dated within the past 3 or 4 years) It's going to cost between $1,100 to $1,300. I see that I can purchase a brand new one for about $1,450.

Question is: would it be worth spending the extra money to get a brand new lens, and in theory this new lens being a 100% sharp copy, or should I hold out and hope to find a newer USED lens and save $200- $300?? ... OR, is it a bit overblown with the 'soft copies' and would possibly saving a bit more and buying an older version of the lens not be such a bad idea.

My head seems to be spinning when I'm considering all the options and worrying about possible 'softer' copies.

This will be my first higher end lens purchase ever (I guess 'higher end' is relative lol), so I'm trying to make the best informed, practical decision.

Any input and insight would be very greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and thanks for all the knowledge that flows on this forum.

Mike

That to me personally isn't enough of a difference to buy a used lens. I'm looking at it as a percentage of the original purchase, so it's about 15% give or take.

What price do you put on:
- Mint condition; and
- Warranty?

That's how I'd look at it. Or alternatively, what's a typical failure repair on a 100-400 cost, and does the difference account for that possibility (i.e. within the warranty period of a new lens)?

I'm the same as Phreeky. When I was looking at the 100-400 a few years back the price difference was so small that to me it wasn't worth it. As to the sharpness of the lens, I think most of that went away when bodies started having micro-focus adjustment capabilities.

I just picked up one with a UZ date code (last year) for 1150 + shipping. If I had to pay any more for a used lens than that, I would have bought new - but I paid 80% on the cost of a new one for a relatively recent copy...to me this is worth it. Its like buying a 1 year old car in a way, let someone else drive it off the lot. Now, if I dont use it like I think I will I can turn around and sell it relatively quickly right here on the forums for about what I paid for it.

I have purchased many lens refurbished from Canon USA. We have never had problem with any of them. At Christmas the wife got me a 100L macro. She compare the refurbed price to a new one. As I remember the delta was small so she ordered a new one. The bigger the delta, the more we go for refurbed units from Canon USA.

I had a 100-400 made back in the 90's. Absolutely tack sharp without having to resort to micro adjustment (I used it with a 5D Mk I and 1D Mk II N)

However, it's a lens that demands good light to get the best from it. In overscast sitations, it can struggle.

I agree with Pete. I purchased a 10 year-old 100-400 from a friend, and paid substantially less than current price simply because it WAS 10 years old. I had it inspected/cleaned by Canon also just because it's 10 years old. I think that if the lens has been properly cared for, it's age has little to do with the quality of the pictures it will provide. Look for a good deal on a used one...

Regards!
Don

If you can find a bargain and test it out go for it! If within a couple hundred dollars of full price I would go new.

Happy Shopping!

I don't buy used lenses, the savings isn't worth the hassle.

Yeah, I would go for new with the proviso you can return it for another one if you feel the one you have received is in any respect less that what it should be.

Mind you though, good long lens technique is an art, so you have to be sure you are not attributing something to the lens that is actually your user error.

i buy "used" lenses alot. there are many guys who pay the new lens premium and flip lenses that are in mint or like new condition at a pretty hefty discount. i scored my 100-400 a few years ago for $1125 and you would have needed a loupe to find any evidence of use.

keep buying your lenses new, please. someone needs to do it !

ed rader

I almost exclusively buy used but I am patient and wait for a deal. There has to be at least a 20% savings to make it worthwhile. If not, there should be some warranty remaining.

I bought a great copy used for $1000 and sold it for $1300 to fund a 400mm 5.6. If you can get a good deal buy used and put the savings towards a ballhead/tripod. Good luck!

I like buying used lenses but in person only so I can test before I buy. I got my 2 year old 100-400 off CL for $1,000, prior owner never used it so was still in the factory packaging. Took some hand held shots before buying and confirmed it was tack sharp.

I've bought a couple of lenses used but always from a dealer so I had some comeback if there were any problems. Still saved quite a bit on new prices so it was worth it

My 100 400 was new but I was lucky and got an absolute gem. It is a superb walkaround lens when I don't want to lug around all the heavy stuff or just for taking some quick shots when out with the kids or similar. As somone metioned earlier though it does like a lot of light but it can turn out good shots in low ish light with good technique (or luck, which is probably how I have some good shots )