Thys wrote:
>
> > 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.
I don't buy that either.
>
> 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.
Well, the only reliable (IMHO) source I have heard that from is our
list member Chip Louie (I think), who compared the 300/4 IS and non IS
and also the 300/2.8. He claimed better sharpness for the non IS version,
while the f/2.8 would be still sharper. I don't know if he's still on the
list or at least reading the digest, though. Maybe his mails on this topic
are still somewhere in the archives.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
