> Yes, I realize they are calculated, but sorry, I don't buy
> that they would
> fabricate graphs just to improve their sales.
Well, I didn't say that Canon fabricates graphs.
My point is:
Canon doesn't publish actual measured MTFs. They provide only
projected MTF obtained from CAD software. Credibility of such
MTF comparison tests is low because:
a) they are not obtained from real physical experiment;
b) they are provided by manufacture, and manufactures are prone
to misrepresent test results;
On the other hand:
a) Photodo test are conducted on specialists equipment specifically
designed for MTF tests (see their web site for details)
b) It doesn't seem that Photodo have bias towards any particular
vendor or product (unlike PoP which could claim that Tamron 28-300
is almost as "crisp" as 300/2.8L)
> 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.
300/4 and 300/4IS are both excellent lenses.
According to many sources, non-IS is a bit sharper than the IS.
If you need IS or need smaller closest focusing distance: go for 300/4IS.
If you use tripod or don't have budget for IS: go for 2nd hand non-IS (as I
do :) ).
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
