Hello all! This is my second post here, and I'm a newly joined member. However, I've been lurking around this site for months garnering up as much information as I can possibly get from you folks (which is atremendousamount, if you weren't sure). It's certainly helped lead me to how to look at gear, and decide what is/isn't good for specific things. Typically I shoot scenery/landscape shots, so more often than not I'm outdoors with it. Having a lower aperture I don't believe is something of a big deal to me, however having it for faster action shots would always be nice. F/4 has always been enough for me.


However, recently I've been at a bit of an impasse. Back in December/January I purchased a Rebel T1i body+kit, Manfrotto tripod/head, as well as the Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS lens. Everything's been working wonderfully for me. However, there areoccasionsin which I had more reach than the 200 can give me. So I've been looking around at different options, of course starting with the 100-400 f/4-5.6 that you all boast so much. I also looked at teleconverters, and upping to the f/2.8 version of my lens.


At current, I think that the 100-400 is a bit much considering my body, as well as it's price range. However, it is certainly something I wish to add to my collection sometime in the future. So I looked at the easier option, throwing on a 1.4x teleconverter. Again, based on from what I've gotten from this site, the 1.4x wouldn't kill my quality toobad, and I'm certain I'd want to avoid the 2x. However, the 1.4x only gets me out to an effective 280mm, which isn't too much of a drastic increase. So I did some more digging, and talking with friends, and thought about perhaps the 75-300 f/4-5.6. I work with someone who has a side job at the local paper and does some sports photography and what not, and uses this lens and claims to have no problems or issues with quality. (And it's much cheaper! ) However, Bryan's review makes me wary of it. If the 300mm wasstill an issue for me in terms of not being long enough, I figured perhaps I could put a 1.4x on that, but again I'm very cautious about what it'll do to my image quality. Not having Full Time Manual is another con to the lens, as it is a nice feature. However, in reality, whether or not it's a feature I truly use all the time is probably debatable.


I'm at a loss for what I should be looking at, as the 100-400 seems far above what I should be looking at, not to mention the punch to the wallet, and the 75-300 seems to be an under-performer. Any input you guys might have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!