Ray Amos wrote:
> IMO, the non-IS had no advantages other than price.
But wasn't that the issue? The original question was about getting to 400mm or
so, for photographing birds, for less than US$1000 (actually, it was more like
$700). Several suggestions were offered, including the Sigma 400/5.6 HSM and one
or another of Canon's xx-3xx zooms. Indeed, I myself noted that KEH has a EF
400/5.6L (non-IS) for $999. I, and, if I recall correctly, at least one other
person suggested starting with the non-IS 300/4L and then adding the 1.4x
extender at a later date--at current prices (if you do a little searching) this
combo will come to a little over $1000, but you needn't fork over entire $1K all
at one time; plus you get more versatility than you would with a 400/5.6. I then
added that choosing the non-IS 300/4L while new ones are still on the market had
the advantage of saving money and, possibly, getting slightly better optical
performance than with the IS version (and a warranty).
Note than when I made that statement I did not in any way imply that the IS
version was a poor performer, nor did I make an assertion of absolute fact--my
words were, "it is said." My point being not to in any way denigrate the IS
lens, but to suggest that at about US$800 the non-IS version is a better value,
today, than the IS version at about US$1200 (we're talking mail-order prices
here--a local retailer will no doubt charge considerably more). Now, my idea of
relative value-for-money may be challenged--it is after all just an opinion--but
*in the context of the original question* it seems pretty unexceptional.
Subsequent to my mention of the well-known claim that the non-IS 300/4L may have
slightly better optical performance than its IS successor, Tom P. brought up the
matter of Photodo ratings, and we kind of got off on a track about IS and
performance--whether the IS super-teles have improved performance over the
earlier versions, and all that (at which point I mentioned that Canon's
computer-generated MTF graphs appeared to me to support Photodo's conclusions).
Now, as anyone who's been on the list for last year or so will know (and for
anyone who likes to go trolling), on this list the subjects of Photodo and
whether the 300/4L is better in its IS or non-IS incarnation are guaranteed to
generate a significant response, and this occasion has been no exception
(although I had no thought of trolling when I brought up the IS/non-IS
topic--honest!). Regarding Photodo, let me just say this: I have no connection
to the site or to Hasselblad (unfortunately??), and I view it simply as one tool
among several. However, as best as I can tell, it remains the only
readily-available source of more-or-less objective comparative information
regarding a large range of lenses. We can be as skeptical of their results as we
like, but for my part, I will need to see more than statements along the lines
of, "I don't trust their results" or "Their results don't seem to accord with
real-life reports," before I dismiss them. If someone can offer a concrete
refutation of Photodo results I would love to see it.
The 300/4L IS certainly offers certain advantages, especially for photographers
who need a short close-focusing distance or who intend to do a lot of handheld
shooting with it. I believe I mentioned these in my original response. And it is
certainly a very capable lens. This is not in dispute (I don't think). But that
doesn't mean that the older version doesn't also have advantages of its own,
including price--and for many folks that is not a trivial concern. And (yes I
will say it again) it is just possible that the older version enjoys a slight
advantage over the IS version in terms of edge sharpness and distortion,
although in normal use any such advantage--if it exists--would probably not be
apparent in most situations.
That's it. There's nothing else to it. No one's personal choice of lens is being
attacked or ridiculed. No one is saying that excellent photographs can't be made
with either lens. However, for someone on a tight budget seeking to buy a lens
that can be used for wildlife photography, the non-IS version may be a viable
option whereas the IS version is not. No?
I really had no intention of offending anyone, so if any offense has been given,
I apologize. It is way too easy to get sucked into these debates--I must have
too much time on my hands. :-)
Craig
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
