Hey all:

I'm shuffling my lens lineup, and so am looking for a new owner for my beloved 100-400. The bulk of my work has become indoor weddings and I need to pick up the 70-200 f2.8L for the low light work, and since I've got a 1.4 TC and a 400 f5.6L coming, I'm selling the 100-400.

Those of you who have seen my work in here know what this lens can do. It's a very sharp copy of the lens and is mechanically in top shape. It is four years old. I thought I'd give folks who know the work from this lens, and who know me, first crack.

Condition
Glass: 10/10 (small amount of dust inside, no impact on IQ
Image Stabilization: 10/10
Zoom/manual focus: 10/10
Cosmetics: 8/10 (usual wear on lens body printing with brassing/scratches in high wear areas)

The original box is gone, and the original soft case as well, but as a consolation for that I'm throwing in a Hoya circular polarizer, an approximate $75 value. Lens caps, hood, tripod ring all included.

I'm asking $1,000 firm, and I will pay shipping, either USPS priority mail or UPS ground and will ship anywhere within the continental U.S. This lens lists for $1,400 and up when purchased new from reputable dealers, and the only reason I've gone so low is the cosmetic issues you'll see in the images below. I will accept USPS money orders only.

This is a great chance for someone to upgrade from a consumer-level 70-300 and pick up Canon's top nature/wildlife telephoto zoom in excellent mechanical shape for far less than new money.

Please contact me via e-mail, which is listed below in my sig.

Thanks!

If I didn't already have one................ That's a good deal. I've found that them buggers hold their value. You're gonna miss that lens, Steve. Someone should hop on pretty quick.

Well, I'll miss it because it's been my go-to. But with the 70-200/1.4 TC and 400 prime coming, I won't miss it much.

Wait one stinkin' minute buster!!! Your not going to have a long lens for nature photography?! I think something is wrong in this world! YOU need one bud! Are you keeping a secret from us? Maybe a 500mm or 600mm in the future?

Now, Michael, I said in my original post I'm picking up the Canon 400 f5.6L, so I wont' be LOSING any focal length.

I'm also getting a 1.4 TC to pair with the 70-200 when needed, and the 400 prime has such sharp IQ that it'll take the 1.4 TC and produce top quality images. With my camera bodies I'll lose AF on a lens/TC combo of f8, but in many cases where I need that extra reach I'll be able to manual focus with no prob.

The one place the prime could cramp my style is in the blind at the backyard feeder. The 100-400 has a minimum focus distance of six feet, and at 400mm a chickadee fills half the frame at that distance. The prime's MFD is way out at 11 feet, but I can put on an extension tube or two to bring that back to six feet. I'll maintain autofocus with the tube(s) but will lose distance focus. But since I'll be shooting little birdies that close I won't need distance focus. Everything is a tradeoff, isn't it?

So, all is good, my friend.

Unless something unusual happens to make me famous and rich, I doubt very much I'll be owning either the 500 or the 600 for quite awhile to come, unfortunately, so I'll just have to keep flirting with those big girls through CPS loans.

Geez! I need to learn to NOT skip over things when I read! That 400 is sweet! Congrats!!!

I understand. I was the kid in sixth grade who got the whole Iowa Basic Skills test wrong because I didn't read all the directions. Teacher let me take it over, though. Nice of her, eh?

400mm+1.4x=560mm and no IS? you have steadier hands than me bud!
I'm also fixin' to order a 2.8 but am sitting on the fence about selling the 100-400 and getting the 300 2.8 IS and having it overwith or just ordering the 70-200 2.8.
Are you getting the IS 70-200 or non? Both are supposedly awesome. I wanted to ask WCS if he ever regretted not getting the IS model-I think his is the non.?

MM, when using the 400/1.4 TC, I'll almost always be in a tripod situation.

I'll be getting the non IS 70-200 f2.8. For indoor weddings, having f2.8 AND IS would be perfect, but I can't swing the extra $500 for IS right now, so I'll simply have to use a monopod and a rock solid technique. Plus, in high speed burst rate, the hand shake steadies down and the middle three or four images are always sharper than the first and last couple. I'll also be using flash on most indoor weddings (except for those where the pastor outlaws flash in church), and because the 30D offers increased functionality and precision with an f2.8 lens when using the center focus point, it's more important that the lens have f2.8 max aperture than IS, because that will allow the lens to lock focus faster in low-light/low-contrast situations, and the flash will sync at up to 1/250 to give me plenty of shutter speed. And 200m is always enough focal length for indoor candids.

Let me make sure I understand your choices. Are you suggesting you'll part with the 100-400 and go with either a 70-200/TC or 300/TC?

If you opt for the former, you'll lose crucial reach for wildlife/birding. If you go with the latter, you'll lose crucial flexibility delivered by a zoom. As a wildlife/avian photographer, you need BOTH focal length and zoom flexibilty. Comes right back to money spent, doesn't it? We're talking over $6,000 for both those lenses in the IS versions. Might as well sell the 100-400, pick up the non IS 70-200 f2.8 (which should be about even up), and drop the money on the 500 or 600. Heck, that'll make you the first HSO/FMer to have the REALLY BIG GLASS.

Buzz,

Don't feel bad. I missed that the first time that I read it, too! I think Steve intentionally hid it in the bottom of his post so that we would feel bad for him! I've seen Steve in camo before, but didn't realize he used it with his words as well!

Bubba, it's in the FIRST PARAGRAPH!

Words are the best camouflage there is.

You did a better job of hiding it than I thought!

I wish we had an evil grinning emoticon available on these forums, because this would be the perfect time.

Heck, Ken, if I'd taken one more college course I'd have been certified to teach verbal and written camouflage (English) to our pimple-faced, hormone-drenched high schoolers, those leaders of tomorrow, and I might be sitting in the teacher's lounge right next to you telling stories.

It might not be to late yet!

Oh wait, I forgot "slack-jawed" and "drooling" to describe said students. Yes, I fear it is in fact too late for this one-time would-be high school teacher.