Tom Pfeiffer wrote:
> 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.
Hi Tom,
What I tried to say was that Canon claims the recent IS super-teles (300/2.8L
IS, 400/2.8L IS, etc.) have improved optical performance over their
predecessors, and some third-party sources (like CdI) appear to agree. OTOH, I
also pointed out that some sources--notably Photodo--report that the IS version
of the 300/4L has slightly lower optical performance than the non-IS version.
This latter contention has generated a lot of dissent on the list--not for the
first time. As an absolute, it probably doesn't matter one way or the other--it
may even be that if there is a difference, the difference *between* lens models
is less than the variation *within* the manufacturing run of each model. But in
the context of the original question, the differences, real or apparent, in the
optical performance of the two lenses is of far less importance than the
difference in price (at least in the US market): ~US$700-800 vs. ~US$1200-1400.
And, if someone were to buy the less-expensive non-IS version, there's no need
for that person to feel that he or she is giving up optical performance to save
some cash, but rather *may* (MAY) even be gaining some slight (SLIGHT)
advantage. Not a big deal, really (except for the substantial savings).
Craig
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
