This has probably been addressed before, but I can't seem to find it
in the archives.... Why does the IS version of the 300/4L score such
low marks (3.4) compared to the older, non-IS version (4.3)? I
thought they both used the same optical forumla; can the extra
elements for IS really degrade performance _that_ much?
At first I took this to be a typo, but bringing up the detailed
numbers and looking at the MTF charts indicates that photodo found
the older version to have substantially higher numbers than the IS:
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF300_4LUSM-76.shtml
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/CaEF300_4LISUSM-75.shtml
Dan
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
