$139 - it is 556 subscription sales on SS or (from my history) 125 sales on iS or ... even more on FT. I hope this could help you.

It's not sharp at 400mm, well maybe at f/8 it gets better, but figure 350-360 starts to be the limit.

But at 350mm with an extender 1.4 or 2x it's also pretty good.


I'm not much for renting things for prices like that, when you can buy one used for $1050. Sure easy for me to say, but $139 and make sure that includes insurance if something happens, or even worse you are buying a broken lens? 

Who pays the shipping to and from? And the insurance for that? What's you end cost for the rental including all the side expenses?

I can make you a promise. An old worn out copy of an L lens will beat either of your kit lenses. There's a reason it costs three times as much for the L lenses and it's not just that nice cream colored paint job, or the fancy case. LOL Same reason why some second tier lens will never be half as good as the one for the camera Mfg. Nikon or Canon.

Canon 100-400mm is not very sharp, and you have to push to zoom. It takes a while to get used to it.

I am not sure if 100-400mm II is released. If yes, then hopefully Canon has improved it.

Don't agree, it is sharp. Maybe CA in corners is visible when wide open (1-click Lens Correction in my Lightroom makes the job).
But don't believe in opinions from the internet, test one, check if it suits you (the pull-push zoom is, err, different). e-People used to judge lenses without even touching them (dpreview, especially), and the more expensive lens - the more different stories you can find about ;-). For me 100-400 works.

Works fine for me, and I for one, didn't think I'd like the trombone zoom. the 100-400 was my first. It's fine. And the whole dust sucker theory has some flaws. You see, unless you have an internal focusing lens, the other zooms also extend and retract, so they too should be "dust suckers". Getting used to the adjustment of the friction took awhile, but it works.

No it's not as sharp at 400 as I'd like. Could be we have different standards or shoot at different openings. I run 100ISO unless it's very dark. Shoot a bunch at 1/400th even slower when I'm panning with race cars. Have to remind myself to go faster when I want to avoid any camera jitter. And I leave the IS off, it bugs me. 

I could recommend the 100-400 to anyone as a good quality zoom. Not as sharp as a 70-200, obviously never going to be as sharp as a prime, but for the range and versatility and as I mentioned before I have used it with extenders, it does very nice work.

$139 is everything ... insurance, shipping both ways, no tax.  If I like it, I'll buy it ... Maybe.   

PS:  this one covered in my expenses.   

PPS:  Race -- were you using a monopod/support?

Then it's a good deal for a test run. I was thinking hidden expenses.

Yes, I carry a monopod and have for ages. It folds up and has a carabiner ring on it. I can clip it on my belt if I really need to, or the end of the camera bag or drop it into a side pocket of a carry one or computer bag. I was probably at the limits of the old thing when I had 400mm f/2.8. Screw extension, those little clips have popped on too many tripods, I like this nice singe, twist locking, monopod. No head! Some people like a ball head on top. I rotate the monopod and turn my body. Getting it in the right place to start with, gives me nice motion for a passing vehicle. The 100-400 seems about the same as the 70-200 in size and weight. Not a problem.

Myself, I'll be selling the 100-400, one of the 35-350s, the 400mm f/5.6, and hope that the magic lens (ha ha) will be the 200-400 when it comes out. But only if I can afford it. If the price is too high, I'll carry a bag and a monopod. 

It's kind of silly looking without a monopod? And yes, this is more of a joke image than anything else.


upload image


Even on a monopod, the wind would take this one and try to blow it around. Lens went to South America. Sold to someone shooting soccer with it. Looked like new when I bought it, still looked like new when I sold it a couple of years later. Nice old first issue, non-IS. I got it from a guy who shot stage shows, opera and ballet. So it's had an easy life.

I have rented from BorrowLenses before -- several times, in fact, and have never had a problem with them.  I also don't mind the push-pull - I was actually eyeing that 100-400 used lens there that they have for sale! 

I am pretty sure I rented that one before but now I have am thinking that it may have been the 28-300mm (also a push-pull) instead.  I'll have to go back to my hard drive and pull up the photos from the trip I took to Bryce Canyon to be sure.

I'll be interested to hear your feedback after you've spent 10 days with that baby! 

WAY too much lens for motocross.  And, my monopod fell apart right in the middle of the first day of racing -- and, it was not a cheap monopod.   

I have some writing/reporting to finish, then will take it on safari around the local area. 

With the 100-400? Your monopod broke holding three pounds? (oh, plus the camera, right.)

Oh wow. Well don't get a 70-200 IS/USM f/2.8 then, it's just as big, actually .2lb heavier.

You might consider a sturdy broom handle cut to length and with a 1/4 x 20 stud on the top? 

Hey, how about the pictures? Nice lens isn't it?

It wasn't the weight, Pete -- it was operator headspace.   

I do have an 80~200 f2.8 but it is on the Nikon.  That is what I used for 90% of the pictures. 
I'm looking for a good "long-utility" lens for the T2i.  The 100~400 isn't it.  I can't even hold it steady enough on a monopod. And, the f5.6 aperture doesn't work.  Much of the racing was in shaded areas.  That reminds me that much of the wildlife/nature images will also be in shaded areas. 
I really want to use the little Canon but good lenses are expensive.  I may have to cash out on all my Nikon stuff and make the switch. 
So indecisive.   

Odd I had a headphone problem last weekend (yeah safety work is starting again) funny you should mention it, the problem wasn't the headset, it was the spacer. 

You did put the tripod mount on the lens, not the camera right?

I'd swear that the 100-400 is the best utility lens around. Only reason I like the 35-350 better is I can leave it on and go from track to Victory Circle and not change the lens. I can stand in the back or get up close and get a shot. The 100mm is too long for pits and paddock.

But out shooting the 100-400 works dandy. What's wrong with the f/5.6 it's only there at Max. zoom? I don't use it past 350mm anyway and some swear it's fine at 400mm.

What was the problem, ISO 200 f/5.6 outside, you should have enough speed for sports? And sure if you want the 70-200 f/2.8 that would be faster and cost three times as much! 

It's always a matter of paying for that extra bit of speed. Hey, just like racing?

FYI:  I rented a lens last week.  It showed up on time and clean.  No problems at all.  Seems to be a good company to rent from. 

agreed... the entire process is quite simple and convenient.  I'll use them again.