Thys wrote:
> > 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. It
> has both better sharpness and contrast, allthough I do notice a 'less flat'
> sharpness curve in the IS compared to the non-IS, but it still ends up
> better than the start of the non-IS version.
Fair enough. I assume these are the same computer-generated MTF graphs.
> 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
> the 300/f4IS (not on my web page) has recently been used as a magazine
> cover. I can assure you, it is a sharp lens and very useful.
As Ken says, a very nice shot. It is difficult to imagine anyone not being
pleased with a photo such as that.
However, as I'm sure you know, the degree of sharpness required for offset
printing is often quite a bit less than that required for photographic
enlargement. Of course, making the sale in the first place may require a good
deal more sharpness than the reproduction does. (In other words, having a photo
in print isn't necessarily an indicator of technical excellence, although
getting someone to select that photo might be.)
Regardless, I still think the non-IS 300/4L is the better value at current U.S.
prices.
Cheers!
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
