----- Original Message -----
From: "Vadim Kouzmenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: EOS Re: IS vs. non-IS Sharpness (300/4L)
> > > Note too that the MTF graphs in the "L" lens brochure (Pub.
> > > CT2-1505-004) for the two 300/4L lenses, while not the easiest to
> > interpret (at
> > > least for me) would appear to support Photodo's results.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think I agree with that. I just had a look at the MTF
> > graphs in the
> > Canon Lens Work, and the IS version is better in allmost
> > every aspect.
>
> Those MTF curves from Canon Lens Work were calculated, not measured.
> On the other hand Photodo's MTFs were obtained from real physical tests.
>
> Also, Photodo doesn't seem to have bias towards IS or non-IS lenses,
> while it is obvious that Canon earns money on non-IS to IS upgrades.
Yes, I realize they are calculated, but sorry, I don't buy that they would
fabricate graphs just to improve their sales.
How many lenses did photodo test? In fact, can you describe their test
procedure? (How scientifically accurate is it really?) I'm not saying they
don't mean anything, but if they test a few more lenses by different people,
I would believe their result to be representative of all lenses.
Have you ever tested both lenses side by side? I haven't, but I'm sure it
will be VERY hard to distinguish between the two lenses' performances in
real world application. In the mean time I will continue to use my IS lens
to produce photographs impossible to make with the non-IS version.
Regards
Thys
---------------------------------------------------------
Thys van der Merwe
Portfolio of African Images:
http://home.mweb.co.za/te/teknovis
-----------------------------------------------------------
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
