You get what you pay for.  $199 won't get much for wildlife telephoto.
---been there, done that, and in the process spent more in the
long run upgrading.

Zoom lenses in general can be OK, but not great.  Cheap zoom
lenses are usually not even OK.  Adding a 2x, you will lose
autofocus, and just make a soft image softer.  The 350 will not
autofocus beyond f/5.6.

Fixed lenses will give you quality.

A good beginning wildlife lens is the 300 f/4 L IS lens.
You can add a 1.4x TC and still have autofocus at 420 mm f/5.6.

Roger
Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
example 300 mm image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8
962.b-700.html

That isn't the best no where near the best.  Stay with Canon.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

But really the best value for the cost is the 70-200 f/4.0L.

A 300 will be short for wild life at 100 yrds.

Look at the 400mm f/5.6L rather than a zoom.  Or if you must have a
zoom take a look at the Bigma.

You will not a usable lens for 199 dollars.

Forest Wanderer (pun intended?):

You may have a problem there. Say the dear is 2 meters wide, so you
want a frame of 4 meters, 100 yards away. That is a ratio of 1:23. Your
sensor is 24mm wide, which means you need a focal length of 550mm. The
right lense would be the 500/4, or the 400/2.8 with a teleconverter.

And a quick reality check with the price list will tell you that on
your budget, you may have to get closer to the dear. And let's not do
the same calculation for the cat.

If you want to give it a try anyway, get the 70-200/4. Everything
cheaper is a waste of money.

Thomas

300mm on a 350d =480mm.  Should be enough.  A 2x adapter on a lens like that
will result in a minimum f number of about F11.  won't be able to see
anything and autofocus won't cope.  Anything over 300mm tends to be
expensive, even primes.  Fast long lenses are damn heavy.  stick with the
70-300.  If it turns out not to be enough you are looking at 4 figure sums
of money.

Check out http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/EOS_300D_lenses.html

As others have said anything in the $200 bracket are going to be soft,
and going on reviews on Fred Miranda, especially the Canon. Their non IS
non L series etc in those focal lengths aren't to well rated. I was in
the same position at christmas, and ultimately I went for the Tamron
70-300. Yes it is still a bit soft, particularly beyond 200mm, but the
reviews implied it wasn't as soft was the Canons in the price bracket,
and was significantly cheaper, therefore leaving money in the piggy bank
to start the savings towards an L series glass.

I've been happy with the results so far from the Tamron, a bird in the
distance is hopeless, but start filling the lens with something and the
results are for the money, spot on.

Look for a used Canon 75-300 IS.

http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg

Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS
Canon 200/2.8

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

...

I have a 350D. I decided against he 75-300 USM Canon, and went with a
70-200L /f4 w/ a 1.4 Kenko Pro DG teleconverter.

I'm getting the same approximate reach (280mm vs 300) with the TC, but
with a much better lense. Its a quality lense, with silky smooth
autofocus (even with the TC its not bad) and has very nice color
contrast and sharpness. Most consider the 70-200L /f4 the best value
'L' lense Canon sells.

The bad news is that its about 3x your current budget.

What i'll say is this: if you're very much into casual photography and
have a very fixed limit on how much you wish to spend, get the 75-300
consumer zoom. If you want to take this a bit more seriously, buy the
70-200/f4 as your first taste of 'serious' zoom glass.

BTW, this is a slippery slope. Get the 70-200 f/4, then you start
looking at the 2.8 version...then the 2.8w/ IS. then you want a fast
prime for further distance. then a fast long prime w/ IS. It never
ends. ;)

Sounds like you are a relative beginner, but some of your scenery shots
show promise. The light was not in your favour, being decidedly dull.
Some of the shots show evidence of camera shake. It may be that a decent
tripod should be high on your wish-list if you wish to concentrate on
this area of work.

The owl shots are truly dire, so much so that I can't imagine why you
wanted to show them. You are, as I think you realise, expecting too much
of your equipment, but that just means you have to acquire better
stalking skills and get closer.

You seem to have what we Brits sometimes call "Rolls Royce taste, Mini
budget" or "champagne taste, beer money". Nothing you can get for $199
will get you sharp close up photos of anything from 100 yards (unless
it's maybe a blue whale).

I can see you are a person of deep religious convictions. Those who do
not share them, like myself, may find it rather offensive to have them
rammed down their throat when looking at the pictures. I had to give up
after a few minutes, and I thought I was fairly tolerant. Just a
thought, your call. Other readers of nervous disposition, you were
warned!

David