>And as for the discussion that ensued about IS versus non-IS, I honestly >thought you said the IS was sharper, not the other way around. > >But I've learned my lesson. Questions like that in this group are like >bashing the F100 on one of the rec.photo.* groups. > >Tom P. The "first" message is below so we all can judge if the whole discussion was useful and worth it. ;-) I think we should not count 300/4 in "super teles" so... ...now we can start the second round... Who's the first one (after me)? Vesa ---------------------------- the original one -------------------- From: "F. Craig Callahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun Apr 1, 2001 9:05pm Subject: Re: EOS extenders Ken Durling wrote: >something like the 300m F/4 non-IS if I can find one (OOP, right?) Yes. >then later get a fast razor sharp 135 f/2L or 200 2.8L I'm not sure the non-IS 300/4L doesn't fall into the very sharp (if not razor sharp) category itself. Mostly you're not getting the big maximum aperture compared to the other two you mention, rather than giving up image quality. BTW, if I can sell enough of my FD gear, the 135/2 is next on my list. :-) >I can't see affording a 300 f/2,8 anytime soon. Me neither--that one was definitely an unanticipated, one-time thing. >siginificant. Is there some inherent instability in the IS system >which downgrades the lens, or are they really different optics? Different optical formula. The IS versions of the super-teles (at least the 300/2.8L) are said to be *more* sharp than the non-IS versions. Craig ------------------------ the original one end -------------------- _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
