For user reviews...

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews

DPreview does review some lenses, but only in a "news" form. Example - http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112205sigma_170-500mm.asp

See if you can find the info you're looking for hereKris. There's a section on lens reviews if you look around the page......

Omag 2.0 wrote on Oct 28^th, 2007 at 5:22am:

There are rumours that the 450D is due for release in the New Year. http://www.photographybay.com/2007/09/27/canon-rebel-xti-replacement/
If these are true it might be worth waiting a while as it will affect the price of the 400D. I saw a brand new 350D body like mine for £275 (€392) in my local camera shop on Friday. It should also be possible to get a decent second-hand bargain when people trade them in for the latest model.

I now use this one. http://www.nextag.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-300mm-509193332/uk/prices-html

Not the lens I originally intended getting but they were out of stock & I was persuaded to try it. The image stabilising is handy & I get good consistent results with it but to be honest I got some excellent shots with my old Sigma which was much cheaper. http://www.nextag.co.uk/Sigma-AF-70-300mm-522227355/uk/prices-html

I find 70 - 300 mm is a good compromise for what I use it for but even then I could do with a bit more zoom at the average air display as the display line seems to get further away each season. Don't let anyone try to tell you that 200mm is suitable for photographing aircraft in the air unless you can get really close to them. By that I mean almost close enough to touch them at places like Old Warden. I could have saved myself a lot of money & messing around if I'd been told that when I first got my DSLR.

Hi Kris,

all of my airliners shots were taken with the cheapest Canon 300mm on the market. The non-USM EF 90-300

I've been very pleased with it, and it has been great for portrait shots too, provided sufficient distance can be put between yourself and the subject.

Obviously it works better in good light. In poor light the max aperture of f4.5 is limiting, as this allows less light into the camera, forcing either a higher ISO, or a slower shutter speed, or both.

The USM version of this lens offers faster and quieter focusing, I'm not sure how much this helps in reality.

The 75-300 IS includes the image stabilisation, which allows a slower shutter speed and therefore compensates for the fairly small max aperture of f4.5

Doug's 70-300 IS DO has a significant size advantage, using better optics to contain the same range in a much smaller, lighter barrel.

I have to admit that I have just gone out and got the Canon 100-400 L which Mark refers to, second hand off ebay. I have not yet had a chance to do any proper aviation photography with it, but unless you go for an L series prime lens (like Mr H) then it is *the* aviation lens. You do however pay for the privilege  

Steve

p.s. one final point to note. Irrespective of whatever lens I have used on my Canon 400D, when I have downloaded the images to my PC and sorted the 'good' images from the 'not quite good' ones, I have always been able to improve them in Photoshop. A bit of levels and curves work, plus some cropping and selective sharpening, have transformed even the best images straight off the camera. I never assume that an image as shot is the best that it can be, it can always be improved.

Ivan....There is a camera I haven't heard much about.

I just gave mine away to a friend that is taking photography classes in college. I even managed to dig up the 70-300mm zoom lens I had for it and gave that to him too. It sat in its camera bag for close to 14 years and I figured it still had some use.

My cameras are digital now, I have three Canon, including the 400D. I am into mostly nature photography and have gotten some decent shots.

I figure that I have taken over 15,000 shots in the last three years and shudder to think what that would have cost me in film and development costs.