hi. i am planning to buy my next lens for wildlife and, probably sports too.
however i'm on a budget (and i'm just a hobbyish, don't earn money from my photos), so i can't afford anything more than 1,500.
so i've seen 3 choices: 100-400mmf/4.5-5.6 IS, 400mmf/5.6, 300mmf4 IS.
currently i only own a 20D body, a 70-200 2.8 IS, and a 1.4x TC II.
my quick glance:
-the 300mm f4 IS provides average reach, with IS which is very nice. priced 1,100
-The 400mm f5.6 gives more reach, very nice if i want to shoot birds and/or tigers. but it's 1 stop slower (probably 4 stops slower actually, because there isn't IS). priced 1,100
-the 100-400mm gives a nice zoom flexibiligy. while its quality might be beaten by the fixed ones, but since it'll be used on a 20D, there might be no noticable difference? on the other hand, for $250 more, it's buffed with IS, which makes it although slightly slower than the 300mm for its f4.5 at the 100mm end, but much faster than the 400mm at its 400mm end. priced 1,350
i'm also planning to get a 1D MkII N after photokina 2006.
so here i am very very confused as to which one to get. they all seem to fulfill my needs, and all have similar price. the difference might lie in their qualities? but i've never own any of them to see the difference in their qualities either.
maybe some of you here who had previous experiences with those lenses could help me?