Need your expert advice, please

[rmilian]

Greetings,

My current system consists of one 10D and a film Rebel.
20-35 USM
28-135 IS
50 f1.8
80-200-cheapie lens.

I like to take portraits, landscape, wild life and still life.
On occasion I like to take pictures of sports.

I am contemplating either an 80-200L f4 with a
2x for long shots or a 100-400L.
However, while at the Camera store the other day, the sales person recommended the 75-300 IS instead of the more expensive lenses.

What are you thoughts?

[KennyG]

Go for the 100-400L. The 75-300IS is an OK lens for the casual shooter but does not have either the build or optical quality of the 100-400L. I have both, so I speak from experience. The 75-300 images lack that almost 3D quality of the 100-400L.

When it comes to sport photography reach is all important, unless you are on the sidelines of a small field or a few feet from a race track. The extra 100mm of the 100-400 is invaluable, as well as its two mode IS system.

It is also great for wildlife. You will find the 100-400L in the kit of a lot of wildlife and sport photographers, as it is one of the most versatile and useful lenses for both.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree over the 70-200 f/4 grab the 100-400.

But as an alternative,. if fast apertures may be neccesary a the sacrifice f some focal length,. you may want to consider the 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X (about the same cost as the 100-400)

Although with the 2X you will sacrfice some image quality,. you will stiall have full autofocus and tou will allways have the flexibility of a 200mm @ f/2.8 in lower light.

I would say those are the two options you should be comparing.

The f/4 version of the 70-200mm will not autofocus and f/8 will be too dark for a lot of situations.