A rookie lens question

[Robin922]

A true rookie with a million questions! Quick background, I won a little grade school photo contest back in '65. Felt good, but not having any shutter bugs in the family was never encouraged. For the next 25 years, it was point & shoot snapshots. Then I was introduced to 35mm WOW, learned a few basics, had fun, but the cost to develop killed the budget.. back to point & shoot.

Well, I just couldn't take it any more, I'm on an extended business trip that is taking me around the world. Standing in Europe seeing some great shots, and missing them, because my little pocket Sony just couldn't do the job. Now in Asia, I broke down and decided to take the plunge.. Canon 350D. Know it's only a hobbyist body, but figured it was a good place to start. Having a blast, got some shots I really like.

Now I'm pushing it again, I need more horsepower... the right lens.

I don't have a real nitch, but like to shoot things that tickle my fancy at the moment. Some times it might be a large building or bridge, some times it's people on the street. I've always loved animals and will be doing a little jungle trekking, wildlife will be a whole different cup of tea!

My game plan is to buy a few good pieces that I will grow into, rather than a bunch of cheap stuff that I'll have to replace later.

Right now I have:
 The basic little 18 -55 that came with the body. I've found myself using it mostly for 'snap shots'.
The Canon 28 - 200 which has become my most used
The Sigma 10-20 which I've only had for a week, but having fun with.
The Speedlite 580EX for those dark moments.

I'm thinking picking up the Canon 100 - 400 for critter shooting. Would love to hear some feed back on this choice. This would be by far the most expensive item, and take a bit out of the budget, but on the other hand.. if the opportunity arises I want to be able to catch the picture.  I'm green, but I know nature very seldom give you a second chance.

Is the 100 - 400 a good choice?

Sorry for being so long winded, but figure if you know where I'm coming from, you can point in the right direction.

Thanks

[DarkPenguin]

It is a nice lens.  It is very big compared to your other lenses.  It is a push pull design (bleagh) which you may or may not like.  Optically it is nice.

You might also consider the canon 70-300 IS.

I use a 70-200 f4L and TC to get out to that range so what do I know.

[kbolin]

Although you have 28 - 200 another option is to get the 70-200 F2.8L and a 2x TC.  Michael has a review of using this lens with the TC against the 100-400 F4L.

400 vs 400

I have both and use the 70-200 as a regular use lens (seldom with a TC although at times with a 1.4 when I don't have my 100-400 with me).  I absolutely love the quality of this lens and have never regretted purchasing it.  With the TC you would have to live with the lesser quality images than with the 100-400 alone.

DarkPenquin is right, these are heavy big lenses and the push/pull of the 100-400 is not as nice as the ring type of the 70-200.  If you hang the lens down the barrel can slide down if the friction isn't tight enough and too tight doesn't allow for easy changes but once you get the friction just right it seldom causes problems... just something to consider.  

For major critter shooting I use the 500 F4L but very seldom handheld unless my wife suggests I need a workout.    

I've never regretted the 100-400 and I don't think you would be either.    

Kelly

[macgyver]

Robin, don't belittle yourself, the XT is a fantastic body.

That aside, I have a70-200 2.8 IS.  Great lens, but far too short for good wildlife (although, aren't they always too short for wildlife  )  I'm looking at the Canon 400 5.6L or Sigma 50-500 "Bigma".  Both have consistantly gotten good reviews (although even mentioning a sigma lens of a site like this is like mentioning an exwife at a family reunion).  I would recomend the 70-200, ifs a wonderfully useful focal length and will be a great lens for almost anything you need or want.