> I tend to agree with you. I think the 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM gets a bad
rap
> to a large degree. It may not have perfect optics, but there are a lot of
> other lenses that fall into that category, and on balance, I think it's a
> very good lens.
You might be interested in this from photo.net:
"Both zooms provide this level of sharpness, of course, and more. According
to my own tests, the IS has sharper corners than the L until 200mm, where
the L zoom pulls ahead. Several sources, including Canon's "Lens Work II",
contain rudimentary information that support this conclusion. If you are an
"L Lens Uber Alles" -type religious fanatic, feel free to ignore this data.
On the other hand, if you have reasonable data to the contrary, I'd be happy
to exchange test slides with you. "
The source: http://www.bsag.ch/~fs/photo/lvsis.html
The tests: http://www.bsag.ch/~fs/photo/lvsistst.html
See ya,
Salty
John "Salty" Stines
Cramerton, NC
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
