I got this one guys!


300mm f/4.


Here is why... I used to have a 100-400mm L and I liked it at the time, but found, over time, the photos aren't as sharp as with primes. The 300 is a constant f/4 whereas the other is 4.5-5.6. The 300mm is the same length, but a little thinner and MUCH lighter. Built in lens hood which is cool/nice. The images it takes are stunning and IS is the best I've seen yet. Now, EVENTUALLY I think you'll either want to get a 600 f/4 or, more likely, a 400 or 300 f/2.8. I say more likely because you can get THREE lengths from the 2.8s. I used a 400mm f/2.8 on the beach shooting surfers and it was nice because, on the 50D we used, we could get 400, 400 x 1.4 or 400 x 2. 400 with a 2x still takes beautiful photos! The 300 is the same if not better. The 400 is the most expensive and heaviest supertelephoto through the 500 f/4 mark, but the 300 is lighter and makes a great compromise. Plus, you can always crop if you need to but you can't widen a lens. The 300mm f/2.8 is considerably more expensive, but I recommend that if you can at some point. Oh yeah, and a 7D would ROCK over your 20D


- Jordan