I'm new to these fourms, though not to the website. I'm sure that this kind of question is quite often overasked, but I could use your opinions.
First, background. I am not professional by any means, I am a still fairly new photographer who got started by shooting highschool sports events for a highschool student newspaper. I hope to contenue to do so for college in the next 4 years. Please do not look down on me because of this. While I know that by saying I am a student who worked for a student newspaper I open myself up for certain criticism, everyone has to start somewhere. (Rant finished)
Anyway, I shoot a little of everything. I love shooting wildlife(as much as the small game I live by can be called that), I shoot landscapes, I would like to keep shooting sports in college for the college publication, those around me are a constant source of photo-fodder, basically I am one of those "i take my camera everywhere" sort of guys.
After a considerable amount of time saving/working I am ready to buy a new lens. This is quite nice because I have been on a tight budget. I have a Canon 300D Rebel w/kit lens and a 70-300 f/4-5.6 zoom. Originally, I had my heart dead set on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. I still think this would be an excellent investment for me. I am often lacking in low light capability, and the f/2.8 would be very helpful. However I recently got to play with the Canon 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS. I now wonder if this would be a better buy if for no other reason than the focal length, which would be a boon for wildlife.
Basically, it comes down to this: should I value length or aperature? And, which lens would be the most usefull in the future (sports/wildlife/landscape)
Yes, this is a rather mundane and materialistic question, but I would like to hear the advice of this fourm. Thanks!