EF100-400 warranty

Was looking at the spec for Nikon AF-S 80-400, and noticed the lens has 5 years Nikon USA warranty?!

Wow, wish Canon would step up to the plate to offer the same.

My EF100-400 V-1 bought new in 1999 needed the manual focus assembly replaced within one year, free of charge under warranty.

The manual focusing ring failed again within a year of the initial repair, I got covered from my credit car's additional warranty.

I had to pay for the repair when the same manual focusing ring failed again for the third time another year or so later, this time I had to pay out of pocket but Canon said it will give me the consideration if it failed again.

Fortunately it worked just fine for the next 8 or 9 years I continued to use the lens until I sold it in 2012, so perhaps there is a weakness of the design which was resolved in later years.

Hopefully the V-II I bought will prove itself to be a robust design and construction without mulitiple early failures I experienced with the V-I, which on a Nikon would have been fully covered with the 5 year warranty......

My well used version 1 never had any failures and my version 2 has a three-year Canon warranty. Warranty conditions can be regional, so give it a check in your region.

It seems that most people don't understand why companies offer extended warranties.

It's because their products don't compete successfully, or the company has a reputation for unreliability.

Companies do NOT offer extended warranties out of the goodness of their heart.

skid00skid00 wrote in post #17375769
It seems that most people don't understand why companies offer extended warranties.

It's because their products don't compete successfully, or the company has a reputation for unreliability.

Companies do NOT offer extended warranties out of the goodness of their heart.

That may be true in some cases, but not necessarily in all cases.

The extended warranty can be one of the determining factors when purchasing a product, it's an insurance against unexpected failures. Business offers it based on the assumption the product will be reliable enough the company won't lose money, consumers treat it oppositely.

I bought extended warranty for my previous car for $1,500, made out like bandits for the 7 years coverage with $6K worth of repairs.

Didn't buy the extended warranty for current car which is now 10 years old, I would have only recovered $200 worth of repair an extended warranty would have covered.

So my gambles have paid off.

In much of Europe, the legal warranty minimum is two years.

Product quality comes from the design, engineering, and manufacturing departments. Warranty comes from the marketing department. All else being equal, I'd buy another $25,000 Toyota with no warranty before I'd consider a $25,000 GM product with a 10-year warranty. I want a car I can drive, not one the manufacturer will fix WHEN it breaks. Same philosophy applies to most consumer goods.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17376742
Product quality comes from the design, engineering, and manufacturing departments. Warranty comes from the marketing department. All else being equal, I'd buy another $25,000 Toyota with no warranty before I'd consider a $25,000 GM product with a 10-year warranty. I want a car I can drive, not one the manufacturer will fix WHEN it breaks. Same philosophy applies to most consumer goods.

Your post actually illustrates why a warranty is better. You, as a single consumer, are in a poor position to actually evaluate the probable reliability of a product. You state that you would take a Toyota without a warranty, which suggests to me that you are still seeing Toyota in light of the reputation they built for themselves in the 1980's and 1990's. In the last decade Toyota has released products with significant, expensive problems (oil sludging being the most memorable) and they have had a large number of recalls.

Nobody is immune. And if a company takes the eye off the ball for a bit, well, "The Toyota Way" can become something different.

The only kind of person (outside the manufacturers themselves) who knows what is and is not quality is someone who has a fleet. In cars, this would be Avis I guess. In cameras it is Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals. If he tells me a lens is unreliable, I bet he is correct.

Agree with above Toyota vs GM analogy, although my two examples were an Acura that needed $6K unexpected repair which were covered under 7 year extended warranty and the Honda that needed $200 unexpected repairs by the time it was 7 years old.

By all accounts both of the new Canon 100-400 and Nikon 80-400 are (supposed to be) of high image quality, good design and solid build, time will tell if the $400 or so premium for more years of warranty pays off for Nikon accountants in the long run.

I'll bet Nikon will come out ahead in the financial aspect.

BTW, Canon Canada only offers 1 year product warranty for its lenses with no extended warranty option available, where Nikon Canada offers standard 5 year warranty for its lenses, I'd be happy with the two or three years warranty offered in some of the other regions.

Sigma offered Nine years warrantee in Canada for its 120-400mm lens. I bought it used in the States, and six what do you know - months later it required a $300 repair for failed OS.

I agree with somebody above - only somebody with a fleet can afford to be self-insured. A single buyer can rely on statistics somewhat, but it is a gamble.

John_T wrote in post #17375866
In much of Europe, the legal warranty minimum is two years.

True, but unfortunately very few people seem to realize this, and companies are getting away with fobbing folk off with just 12 months.

Now quoting Apples UK website

Things are far more complex than they appear on the surface with warranties. Companies don't just pull warranties out of the air. They pay a lot of money for consulting firms to evaluate everything from R&D costs, economy of scale forecasts, profit per unit, expected repair costs under the warranty and the list goes on. At the end of the day companies generally offer better warranties at a higher initial cost to consumers. Others, lower initial cost with a less robust warranty. In the end it all comes out about the same on average. Some may have benefited from a better warranty due to high repair costs, others paid more initially for a better warranty they never had to use. You can't tell the future and you can't expect to get everything for free. That's life. For those unsatisfied with the standard 12 month Canon warranty you always have the option to use a credit card that provides additional warranty insurance. Mine is a no charge card and I've taken advantage of the insurance many times. Most recently for a 300$ lens repair that would have otherwise fallen outside the warranty period.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17376742
Product quality comes from the design, engineering, and manufacturing departments. Warranty comes from the marketing department. All else being equal, I'd buy another $25,000 Toyota with no warranty before I'd consider a $25,000 GM product with a 10-year warranty. I want a car I can drive, not one the manufacturer will fix WHEN it breaks. Same philosophy applies to most consumer goods.

Not to get off topic, but if you haven't checked out a GM vehicle in years, I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. I never thought I would own another GM product, but there are now two in our garage - a 2009 Saturn Vue and 2011 GMC Terrain. Both are quality built, and neither has experienced any mechanical issues needing repairs. I've previously owned a Toyota Camry for 10 years (great car), a Nissan Altima for 9 years (not so great), and my wife's had two Mercury Villagers, which were just rebadged Nissan Quests (and the quality was lacking on the 2nd one). The stereotypical mindset that Honda and Toyota are great while GM sucks is really outdated.

Anyway, extended warranties are a losing bet in the long run. They are offered because they provide a huge profit margin for the warranty seller. With all the money I have saved by not buying extended warranties over the past decades, I can easily afford to pay for repairs or a replacement for the few items that may break during an extended warranty period. Extended warranty tales are like tales of people winning in Las Vegas -- you only hear about the times people win, and not all the times they lose, which is much, much more often.