>tests.
>My real-world usage of the 300/f4 IS certainly suggests that it is very
>sharp, and I doubt very much that the non-IS would have done any better. In
>fact, many of my photographs simply would not have been possible with the
>normal 300/f4. I'm fighting with the idea at present of trading it in for
>the 300/2.8IS since I'll battle to justify having both; but it is really
>nice to have such a close focusing, portable lens as the 300/f4IS. The shot
>of a leopard on my website at
>http://home.mweb.co.za/te/teknovis/T-M0031%20Leopard%20portrait%204.htm has
>been used for a glossy brochure cover and another leopard shot, also with
Beautiful shot, Thys. Do you happen to have the details?
Bird and wildlife photography in the field would certainly suggest the
preferability of the IS version. Just yesterday I found myself
*running* with camera in hand to try to get a close-in shot of our
elusive Clapper Rail here. So often there are suddenly emerging
situations that are gone in a few seconds. It's also true that with
some experience and study and observation, you can often predict where
these events will happen, and train a tripod mounted lens on the
general area.
Airshows, too, another area I want to use a long lens, would seem to
suggest IS preference, although here often you can choose a pre-focus
spot as the pilots are very precise. But panning shots . . . I
don't recall at the moment if the 300 IS has the 2-mode IS or not.
Ken Durling
Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/
Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
