Sorry...another lens decision

[photofinish]

Sorry, everyone, I too need some opinions as to which lens I should buy...

The need: I frequently shoot landscapes on local hikes on trail systems around town. I would like to capture some wildlife on those hikes. But, I also miss the range of my old Minolta Dimage 5 (35mm-250mm). Seems like that got me through most of my everyday-type shots, ie, around the house, with the kids, etc. I think I need image stablization since I am not the greatest at keeping a camera still enough when hand-held, though on my hikes I usually bring a tripod or a monopod. Check out my gallery to see the types of shots I make... http://www.pbase.com/fotofinish

What I currently have: Canon 20D, 18-55mm EF-S kit lens, 50mm 1.8

What I'm considering: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS

I know there are a bazillion requests like this each day, but any help anyone can give me would be appreciated...

[ron chappel]

The 70-200/2.8 IS sounds the most likely match for the focal length.

You sure are stepping up in image quality (and cost!) though

If you don't want to spend so much and want to save weight the 75-300 IS lens may suit you best
I've done some comparison tests with the 18-55 and 75-300 at the same magnification (moved the tripod to get the same cropping).They are very similar in sharpness .Hope this helps

[mdr]

... and weight!

[Jon]

Just guessing - the wildlife you're after is birds and small mammals; probably moderately skittish? I seriously don't think that the 70-200 will be long enough. Go for the 100-400; the cost is not that different, and it'll be a better match for small wildlife at any kind of distance. My back-of envelope calcs show a 70-200 giving good coverage of an 8" critter out to around 9-10 ft. A 100-400 will get you to 20 ft. (assuming the subject's to occupy about 3/4 of the frame, long dimension).

[tim]

Those are quite heavy lenses that are being recommended - you don't want to have to hike to far with them.

[Jon]

They're the ones he specifically asked about; mostly we're just suggesting reasons why we think one or the other of his choices would be better. But personally, I do some fairly rugged terrain with my 100-400, and my 15-30 and my 24-70, and my 20D, and my D60, and . . . If you're going out specifically to get photos, weight is a lesser concern than if you're going out backpacking and might want to grab a couple of snaps.