I've been having this debate with myself (I used to be schizophrenic but now ... who said that :eek: ) I don't think I would be happy with the 18-55 kit lens so have been comparing these bodies with the 17-85 IS lens.

There is only about £100 between these two options in Jessops or most online retailers. I like the smaller size of the 350D but the 20D has as better feel/build quality about it as well as been a bit faster and instinctively I feel this is the better buy.

I'm going to In Focus at the NEC later this month and will try to make my mind up.

One lens for each job? Doesn't that get a bit pricey? I use the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS for most things and a fairly happy with it, but I am worried about an upcoming safari I am taking. I would hate to miss the shots for having a lens that is too short. DO you have thoughts on the best lens for a safari?

I do have both the 350 and 20d and I would say the 20d is the better all round camera.I use the 350 with a 28-300 is lens just for a lightweight jobbie when I take the dog for a walk.But the shots I have taken just do not seem to quite match up with the 20d,even when using a 100-400 lens.Perhaps it is just me,but I would opt for the 20d each time.

I am really looking for the differences between the 2 lenses not the 2 cameras. My question really has to do with comparing image quality and sharpness between the 100-400IS and the 28-300IS. Both lenses will be used on the 20D

100-400 ,no comparison between the 2.But,there is a price difference,and the 28-300 is much lighter for travelling.It is a good little lens,and okay for a wide variety of shots,but for sharpness and quality ,I will have to say the 100-400.But this is just my personal choice.I do have both lenses.

I think you are talking about another lens. The EF28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM weighs 3.7 lbs and costs about $1600. (heavier and more expensive than the 100-400)
the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM weighs 3.1 lbs and costs about $1200.
According to the reviews I have read, they seem very comparable, but since I have only used the 28-300 I need input from a user of both lenses.

Sorry,yes I did get the lens mixed up.The one I was referring to is the 70-300 IS,I was using it today.Very light and easy to carry around.

Christine I think that maybe because your 20d is your main bird photography camera you feel more comfortable using it as there really is no real difference between the two cameras, apart from the 20d shooting more frames per second which can be useful for some action shots. In the end which camera someone chooses comes down to personal preference.

Let me say from the outset that I have used niether of these lens. The reviews and charts I have read on these two lens do rate the 100-400 higher on the optical performance. Which is understandable because it has a smaller zoom range. With the 28-300 you are paying a lot of money to overcome the increased number of design compromises of a x10 zoom.

The 28-300 was intended to be a "one lens" solution for a full frame camera. Somebody who does not want to carry around a bag full of lens and avoid the hassle of keep changing lens on the job. On full frame the lens gives a nice range from wide to telephoto. On a 20D due to the 1.6 crop factor the range is shifted to become normal to long telephoto (45 to 480). Hence, you now see a number of new lens which start from 24mm.

I have the 24-70 f2.8 which on paper performs much better than the 28-300.

The 100-400 on the 20D becomes 160 - 640 when the crop factor is taken into account. There are a large number of bird photographers who use this lens and it does give very good results. If you want even better images you should think about moving away from a zoom lens to prime.

It really depends on your subject, convenience and required image quaility on which lens you should choose. ( providing money is not an issue )

The price you pay for a lens in Dollars is what we pay in pounds sterling in the UK. A very sore point when we look at lens prices overseas.

Like Christine, I have both these bodies. Having used the 20D for several months with my 400mm f5.6 and now the 350D on this lens, I have seen no real difference in quality between the two. The 350D is so light, that hand-holding with the 400mm is great.

I find the setting controls on the 350D a little awkward (mainly menu driven similar to a digital compact) and the 20D more familiar (similar to Canon film bodies I used in the past). The 350D's LCD info display on the rear, rather than top is great for tripod work, which the 20D doesn't have. However, the 350D colour screen is not as crisp as the 20D's with a very small viewing angle (i.e. you have to be right behind to view).

I have a grip on the 20D, but not the 350D (which I want to keep small and light). I find the 20D + grip very comfortable to use, but also have found the small 350D equally comfortable - which is a real suprise.

My thoughts - both cameras are excellent, for their price, and I have a different use for each. The 20D is almost always on my 500mm and tripod, the 350D on a 400mm or wider zoom for hand holding. The biggest surprise is how comfortable I have found holding the 350D - I had thought it would be too small without a grip, even after testing in the shop when looking for the 20D.

Cheers

Mark.